Lords Sitting of 21 July 1999

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Hereford.

Lord Lea of Crondall
David Edward Lea, Esquire, OBE, having been created Baron Lea of Crondall, of Crondall in the County of Hampshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord McCarthy and the Lord Murray of Epping Forest.
Lord Elder
Thomas Murray Elder, Esquire, having been created Baron Elder, of Kirkcaldy in Fife, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Haskel and the Baroness Smith of Gilmorehill, and made the solemn Affirmation.

Glyphosate Residues in Food
2.47 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
When and upon what basis the decision was made to increase the maximum residue level of glyphosate in food by 200 times; whether the increase also applies to glufosinate ammonium; and whether it is their practice to advise food manufacturers and retailers when such changes are made.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Donoughue): My Lords, currently there are 152 statutory maximum residue levels (MRLs) for glyphosate in various foods. Only the one for soya has increased.
This decision was taken by the European Union following a full risk assessment which indicated that residues at the new level do not represent an unacceptable risk to consumers. The new MRL of 20 mg/kg was implemented into United Kingdom legislation on 30th April 1997 following, I am advised, the usual consultation arrangements at that time. The MRL does not apply to glufosinate ammonium.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that full reply. Is he aware of Italian work which shows that glyphosate is genotoxic and that it has particular affinity for liver and kidneys? In view of the fact that soya is widely used in our foods, and that we have a problem with genetically modified soya in that it cannot easily be separated from soya that has not been genetically modified, should we not express particular caution with this product? Is the noble Lord also aware that it seems to be the commercial, as
966
opposed to the technical, formulation which is causing the problems? Further to Written Questions that I have asked about other products, is it not very important that we know what the so-called inert ingredients and surfactants are in these products?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I bow to the noble Countess's greater knowledge of this subject. I must confess that as of 24 hours ago my knowledge was not very profound.
This matter was subject to a full scientific scrutiny before the approvals were given in Europe and brought into legislation by the previous administration. The increase in the level is considered to be well within safety levels; indeed, it could be increased a further ten times without risk. If the noble Countess is concerned about any further technical aspects, I shall certainly write to her.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister say why it was fixed previously at such a low level? Surely there was some negligence there.
Lord Donoughue: No, my Lords. The previous level—which I think was 0.01—was effectively a zero level. It operated before the matter had been considered and when it was not a practical question. It then became an issue of trade. The low level prevented the import of soya treated in this way from, say, the United States. When that issue was raised, the level was increased by 200 to make it a more relevant level. The previous level was effectively a zero level.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, can the noble Lord identify the name of the committee at the European level; whether it was a regulatory, advisory or management committee; and the name of the person who represented the United Kingdom on that committee? Can he say whether the results of the committee's deliberations were, in addition to the Government, made available to Parliament as a whole?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I cannot reveal the name because the matter was conducted under the previous administration and all such information is kept secret. The matter was scrutinised by the appropriate and relevant European committee, which has approved already some 11,000 maximum residual levels and continues to do so. Again, if there is anything of relevance in what my noble friend has asked, I will write to him.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, is the Minister aware that cattle across the country are fed high volumes of soya? Does that have any effect on humans? Has any work been carried out to check the levels taken in by cattle and whether that in any way can be passed on to humans?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I do not know about work into cattle feed. Currently soya is being monitored by the relevant working party on residual levels in

967
pesticides. Three kinds of soya are being investigated this year. I am not aware that animal feed is being investigated.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, before we leave the Question, can the Minister tell me what is glyphosate?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I sympathise with my noble friend. I asked the same question at 10.15 this morning. Glyphosate is a total weedkiller which is used by a number of companies. In this case it is marketed by one particular company. It also acts as a desiccating agent. It is a total weedkiller and therefore is of relevance to the issue of genetically modified crops issues in that seeds which are resistant to it are being developed.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, my understanding is that the level was raised because of the introduction of GM crops and the fact that such crops are able to be sprayed at a later stage rather than at seed stage. Can the Minister comment on that and on the question of the noble Countess about the implications for human health?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I do not agree. The increased level was not introduced for genetically modified foods but for non-genetically modified soya. It was introduced at a later stage for genetically modified food. As I said, that happened under the previous administration.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, are the Government's advisers in agreement with the advisers to the Commission on this specific issue?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, yes. As far as I understand it, our advisers are in agreement with them.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, was the Minister informed in his briefing that glyphosate is one of the most common causes of complaint to the UK Health and Safety Executive's pesticide incidents appraisal panel? In those circumstances, is not it a matter of great concern, in respect of soya or any other product, that the levels of glyphosate—or Roundup, I think was the word the Minister was trying to use earlier—should be correct. It is manufactured by Monsanto; that is the company with which we are concerned. Should not the Government reappraise whether the level is correct?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, the Government are concerned about any threats to health and safety; that is why the working party is looking at this issue. It is Roundup; I did not wish to give a plug to the company marketing that tradename. We are looking at that aspect in relation to soya. The advisory committee is concerned with safety in relation to glyphosate and other organophosphates. This is an OP, and that is why we are reviewing the whole issue.

Digital Broadcasting Licences: Religious Bodies
2.56 p.m.
Viscount Brentford Viscount Brentford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to permit religious bodies to hold digital broadcasting licences.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Broadcasting Act 1990, as amended by the Broadcasting Act 1996, disqualifies groups whose objectives are wholly or mainly of a religious nature from holding a terrestrial digital radio multiplex licence or a programme service licence. The Government have received legal advice to the effect that the UK's policy on national radio licensing represents a legitimate aim for the purposes of the European Convention on Human Rights and that the Broadcasting Acts pursue those aims in a fully defensible way. We have no immediate plans to introduce new government broadcasting legislation, but then would be the time to review matters of broadcasting policy.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that disappointing but also somewhat encouraging reply. I should declare an interest as chairman of the trustees who own Premier Christian Radio, which broadcasts throughout the Greater London area. Does the noble Lord appreciate that all such bodies are effectively being barred from applying for the new licences currently being advertised in an industry that is growing at an unprecedented rate? Are the Government prepared to allow time in the next Session for a Private Member's Bill to correct this anomaly and to permit religious organisations to hold terrestrial digital radio licences?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there is certainly an anomaly in the sense that the amendment of the Broadcasting Act 1990 by the Broadcasting Act 1996 allowed local analogue licences but did not allow local digital licences. That was an omission from the 1996 Act. As I made clear in my first Answer, the Government do not have any plans to introduce legislation. We would take any private Member's legislation on its merits.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, my noble friend has a point. This is an appropriate matter for Parliament to consider, particularly against the background of the revolution in digital broadcasting. Now is perhaps the right time to investigate fully whether it is appropriate to allow the regulators to consider whether or not licences should be granted, rather than to exclude those who wish to broadcast religious programmes from applying for licences because of the inhibitions of the 1996 Act. As the Government are somewhat wedded to reviews, is not now the time to launch such a review?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I should make it clear that no new frequencies are available at

969
present. The prohibition that affects groups whose objectives are wholly or mainly of a religious nature is not confined merely to religion but applies also to local authorities and political organisations. I hope that the noble Baroness, whose government legislated in this way, will agree that it would be undesirable, where frequencies are limited, to have them taken up by organisations whose objectives are—I put it in a totally neutral way—propaganda-based. We should be encouraging channels which reach a broad cross-section of consumers. It would not be right for us to re-investigate the matter now, in the absence of any programme of primary legislation.
The Lord Bishop of Durham: My Lords, does the Minister understand that his responses; must be seen in the context of a reduction in religious broadcasting and its marginalisation on normal terrestrial channels? Would any investigation also include that consideration?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not know that I can accept that. The Central Religious Advisory Committee, which meets the BBC, the ITC and the Radio Authority twice a year, has not taken the lead in any representations in support of United Christian Broadcasters, the organisation to which I imagine that the original Question referred. If there are problems about the religious content of broadcasts more generally, they can be taken up without raising the issue referred to in the Question.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I am worried about my future, and that that is why I gave way to the right reverend Prelate? At the risk of sounding like a politician turned preacher—if only because the preachers may turn into politicians and get their own back—may I ask my noble friend whether he agrees that we should save the people of this country from the American experience? That country has extensive religious programming, broadcast by what are no more than money-raising organisations. Does he further agree that the morning service on a Sunday morning and "Songs of Praise" on Sunday evening are very acceptable to the people of the United Kingdom, and that we should not go further than that?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not know that I want to encourage any analogy between religious broadcasting in the United States and United Christian Broadcasters, or indeed Premier Radio. My noble friend is right, in that our objective—which was also the objective of the previous government in introducing the Broadcasting Act—must be to encourage diversity in broadcasting. That means broadcasting that reaches a broad cross-section of consumers. That includes the ability, but not the obligation, to listen to religious broadcasting on general channels.

Heavily Indebted Poor Countries
3.2 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich The Earl of Sandwich asked Her Majesty's Government:
What safeguards will be put in place to ensure that enhanced debt relief to heavily indebted poor countries, agreed in Cologne, will be used to reduce poverty and meet the 2015 international targets.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we welcome the G7 Cologne statement that the central objective of the HIPC initiative is to release resources for programmes to reduce poverty and thus help to meet the 2015 international targets.
The second phase of the HIPC review will focus on how that commitment is to be implemented. The Government have submitted proposals to the review. The outcome will be settled at the annual meeting of the World Bank and the IMF in September.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that helpful Answer. Does she agree that there is an element of the emperor's new clothes about the announcement at Cologne? One wonders how much of the money will ever reach the poorest people for whom it is intended. For example, Tanzania, which is one of the poorest countries, is already unable to pay half of its debt interest. It is down to about three dollars per head for the education of its children. In those circumstances, will the noble Baroness give some reassurance that at the autumn meeting there will be a further undertaking to relate debt relief to poverty and to the targets at which we are all aiming for 2015?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I assure the noble Earl that we welcome the fact that part of what came out of the Cologne statement was a clear recognition that the central objective of debt relief is to release money for anti-poverty spending. In the case of Tanzania, if the changes to the HIPC framework go through, they will provide deeper and faster relief for Tanzania. It means that it will qualify in a three-year rather than a six-year period, because it will be able to get interim debt relief from the point of decision-making, which is three years before the point of completion. In addition, with the Ministry of Finance in that country, we have been assisting Tanzania through a capacity building programme to enable it to negotiate more effectively in relation to debt relief.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, it has been reported today that a further 2,000 jobs have been lost in gold mining in Ghana. While apologising to my noble friend Lord Lucas for trespassing upon his Question, I ask whether the 2015 targets are being compromised by the Government's policy of selling gold, leading to worsening unemployment in many HIPCs? (PCs? Will the noble Baroness confirm that DfID was consulted about that policy in advance, particularly given that it is acting detrimentally upon the Government's stated wish to offer a hand-up, rather than a hand-out?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot agree with the noble Earl. One of the reasons that there

971
has been a commitment to selling 10 million ounces of IMF gold is to meet the costs of providing additional debt relief under an enhanced HIPC process. It is essential to secure financing for the proposed revision, and the sale of IMF gold is the best way to meet the fund's share of the costs.
We acknowledge the concerns of poor-country producers of gold. We have a commitment to ensuring that the sale of that gold is managed carefully. The long-term trend of the gold price is down. That has nothing to do with the recent sales. One of the things that DfID has done and is continuing to do is to urge developing countries to diversify their production so that they are not so dependent on gold exports. So we are doing everything that we can, both through supporting the HIPC process and through supporting individual countries through our bilateral programmes.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, returning to the third Question, what safeguards will be put in place? Are there any systems for monitoring how the money is spent?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, that is one of the areas that are being carefully considered. We do not see the point of releasing money through the debt relief process if we cannot ensure that the money is then well spent in terms of anti-poverty programmes within the countries concerned. The World Bank, for example, is looking at the ability to carry out monitoring. We have made a submission to the World Bank, which is available in the Library of the House. In that submission, we encourage it to look in detail at ways in which the spending of those countries can be monitored to ensure that debt relief leads to enhanced poverty eradication programmes.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, in seeking to further the point made by the noble Earl, when examining this problem, will the noble Baroness always bear in mind the many instances on record in recent years of money being diverted from aid for the poor to aid for the person governing the particular country?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness that we take an extremely robust approach to this. We have said to governments with whom we work that we will not tolerate corruption, that they need to have transparency and good government structures in place. We will assist those governments to put the structures in place if they are not already there.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that there is a particularly strong European dimension in this? In terms of European migration, we are seeing surges of immigration from countries which fail, where disorder breaks out and order breaks down. If we fail to have a strategy for debt relief and assistance for good government in those
972
countries, it will become evident at the European borders in terms of people from those countries desperately trying to get in.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that it is important for us to look at the complexity of the relationship and the fact that we are living in a global world. So there is an intricate and close relationship between what is happening in developing countries and its impact on us and on our European neighbours. I entirely agree that if we do not look after what is happening in developing countries, there will be a knock-on effect to European countries.

UK Gold Policy: African Representations
3.10 p.m.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas asked Her Majesty's Government:
What representations they have received from Commonwealth governments in southern Africa and East Africa about the United Kingdom's policy of selling gold.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we have received representations from South Africa and from the Southern African Development Community, which also represents Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, the Seychelles, Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. I do not suppose the Minister is surprised that the representations are being made. Is not the gold market in a delicate condition, to say the least? Were the gold price to fall another 10 per cent, we might expect major mine closures and financial difficulties in those and other highly indebted developing countries. Under those circumstances, it behoves the British Government to show a lead. It is not just a question of the 100 tonnes that we are selling, but of people's belief that the 34,000 tonnes that are in government and similar hands in the world—a third of all the gold that has ever been mined—may come on to the market and depress the price even further.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, of course the Government are sympathetic to the concerns of gold producers, wherever they may be, but particularly, in terms of the original Question, those in southern Africa and East Africa. However, we must consider the quantum involved. The sale of 25 tonnes of gold which took place on 6th July, which was the first of the five tranches of sales by this country, represents only 1 per cent of the annual mining supply of the gold industry and 3 per cent of the daily bullion turnover in gold. From those figures, I cannot think that it can be asserted that the British sales of gold with which the Government are concerned have had a significant effect on gold prices.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the impact of the sale of gold is particularly

973
strong on South Africa? Gold is its largest single industry and the country's prosperity relies on it. Is my noble friend telling us that we did not consult the Government of South Africa before embarking on this., frankly, dubious practice of selling gold, and, if not, why not?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not accept my noble friend's assertion that it is a dubious practice. It is a proper portfolio decision, as was confirmed by the Bank of England, which advised us on the matter. As to consultation, a decision on sales of gold is market-sensitive. It would be unwise of us to consult in private before making market-sensitive decisions. The Government of South Africa and all the governments of the Southern African Development Community were informed immediately after the decision was taken.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, can the noble Lord say why, if the decision was market-sensitive, it did not make any difference to the market? Can he further dispel the rumours which have been widespread in the City that several finance houses, one in particular, had gone heavily short on gold? Had not the price fallen sharply, they would have made significant losses. Can he say whether any employees or the spouses of any employees of that house had access to the Treasury and had knowledge of the discussions?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, an issue is market-sensitive if it could be market-sensitive. The Government are pleased that the decision did not have the effect on the price of gold which might have been anticipated. As to the rumours to which the noble Lord referred, I know nothing of them. If he cares to write to me about them, I shall investigate and reply.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the Minister may not think that the selling of British gold had any impact on the market, but President Mbeki of South Africa thinks that the action exhibits smug moralistic naivety. Will the Minister pause, even for a moment, in his answers, to consider the 2,000 people made unemployed from the gold mines in Ghana, in addition to the 5.000 so affected last week in South Africa? I wonder whether he saw the television programme last week on the demonstrations in South Africa, with people carrying placards saying, "Britain: stop killing poor countries". Is that an ethical foreign policy?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not pause for a moment before making my answers, but I pause very long and hard before thinking out what my answers should be. I am confident that we are doing the right thing in these matters. The support being given by the Department for International Development for retrenched miners in South Africa is significant. In addition, there is a considerable contribution from this country to the HIPC trust of £171 million. We are the largest contributor to that trust and we are conscious of our responsibilities. But, as I made clear, the portfolio decision which we took cannot be held responsible for the long-term decline in gold prices which is the cause of unemployment in gold industries.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I assure my noble friend that I am delighted not to have the noble Lords,
974
Lord Tebbit and Lord Mackay, or my noble friend Lord Shore advise me on my investments. Does the Minister accept that there are two separate issues? The first is how we can best help developing countries. The other is how we can best manage our financial affairs in this country. What is being done with the sale of gold is obviously in the best interests of this country.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the longer-term decline in the price of gold is extremely serious for this country. Let us examine the record of the previous Conservative government from 1979 to 1997. The Bank of England has calculated that our failure to adjust the balance between gold and currencies in our portfolio, as a result of which we have forgone the interest payments which are available on currencies but not from gold, has amounted to a loss of £9 billion. That is money which we can use for many worthwhile purposes, but it was forgone deliberately and callously by the previous government.

Company and Business Names (Chamber of Commerce, Etc.) Bill
3.18 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed.

Road Traffic (Use of Mobile Telephones) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Immigration and Asylum Bill
3.19 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): 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.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 114:
After Clause 59, insert the following new clause—

Immigration and Asylum Bill

  NON-DETENTION: PERSONS UNDER 18 YEARS
  (" . A person who appeals under section 59 and who is under the age of 18 shall not be detained for any period while the outcome of his appeal remains undetermined.").
  The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 114, I wish to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 115. The amendments refer to the detention of children. Amendment No. 114 proposes that no child appellant under the age of 18 should be detained. That might be thought by the Government to be rather sweeping or even drastic, but then so is imprisonment, in particular for children. At present some are detained in detention centres, but from time to time some are detained in prison. Generally speaking, that is a much more traumatic experience for the children in question.
  The amendment principally applies to unaccompanied children before an appeal is determined. If an appeal takes place and fails, and the child is to be deported, then the amendment would not prevent such a child being held in custody pending the deportation. I realise that the Government have said on a number of occasions that the power to detain children while an appeal is pending will be used only in exceptional circumstances. However, I gather that the Refugee Council has worked with around 80 unaccompanied children in the past two years. Some of them were aged 13 or 14, and some were detained in adult prisons, to which I referred.
  It has been suggested that the detention of refugee children violates Article 37 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, because it is unregulated and without judicial oversight. Furthermore, it violates Articles 22 and 39 of the convention. I hope that when the Minister responds, he will take the convention into account and consider how the powers in the Bill square up with it.
  While I welcome the fact that children will be detained only in exceptional circumstances, nevertheless it seems to me that every effort should be made to avoid detention wherever possible, particularly as regards unaccompanied children. By definition, those children have known traumatic circumstances in their countries of origin, and by succeeding in gaining entry to this country, they have probably also been through great traumas and difficulties.
  I was told by one of the children's organisations of a 13 year-old Nigerian girl whose parents were political activists in that country. Both had gone missing and were believed killed. The girl arrived here on a false passport, because that was the only way she could leave Nigeria. One of the false statements on the passport made her a good deal older than she was. Again, that was necessary if she was to succeed in her aim of escaping the country. Out of fear, she did not at first admit the false statement to the immigration officers. She was sent to a detention centre and held there for several months before eventually being released on bail on her 14th birthday. That case illustrates several of the issues behind the purpose of the amendment, and explains why I wish to draw attention to the matter at this stage.
  A large number of unaccompanied children—probably the majority of those detained—encounter a dispute about what is their real age. Often they will have travelled on false documents, in much the same way as
  976
  the young lady I referred to had done. That is where the second amendment, Amendment No. 115, comes into the picture. On an earlier amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the subject was raised of what happens when the age is disputed. In those circumstances it can be very difficult to decide precisely what is the age of a child or a young person. Amendment No. 115 attempts to ease the situation, although obviously the basic decision will remain just as difficult, whatever the underlying law says.
  The purpose of the amendments is not dissimilar to that of the Government; namely, to avoid as far as possible children—particularly unaccompanied children—finding themselves in detention, and especially, where it can possibly be avoided, finding themselves being held in adult prisons. In the vast majority of cases it should be possible to avoid that. I beg to move.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: The noble Lord has made a strong prima facie case for action to be taken along the lines suggested in the amendments. However, I suspect that there are technical difficulties that may stand in the way of including the provisions in the Bill. No doubt my noble friend will advise the Committee of whether that is the case. However, I for one certainly view very sympathetically the suggestions put forward by the noble Lord. At this stage we would expect no more from the Government—I would not, although I do not know what the noble Lord would feel—than that the matter should at least be viewed in a sympathetic light. If there are technical and drafting problems, those may be dealt with at later stages of the Bill. The noble Lord has made a strong case for careful consideration of the issues.
  Lord Dholakia: I support the amendment. It is a sensible provision, and if there are technical reasons why it should not be included, then we shall want to know them. Equally, however, there is no reason why such technical difficulties cannot be overcome with appropriate wording.
  I should declare once again my interest as a trustee of the Save the Children Fund and a number of other children's organisations. They have produced accurate material on the amendment. The provision refers to refugee children. First and foremost, they are children. The detention of refugee children raises serious questions about protection. Children can be detained in two circumstances: first, as unaccompanied children; and, secondly, as children in families.
  The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, asked whether detention violates Article 37 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Perhaps I may also ask the Minister whether the detention of refugee children violates Articles 22 and 39 of the convention.
  It is always difficult to make distinctions on the matter of age. Its determination has raised a considerable amount of concern. We welcome the Government's declaration that unaccompanied children will be detained only in exceptional circumstances, and that the Government do not knowingly detain anyone under the age of 18. However, children's organisations have produced firm evidence on this point. I have been

  977
  told that in 1996–97 the Refugee Council worked with 80 unaccompanied refugee children held in detention. Those are 80 too many. Some were detained in young offender institutions and others in adult prisons. Some of these children are as young as 13 or 14. It is clear that unaccompanied children are being detained for long periods, as revealed by the case of the Nigerian girl mentioned by the noble Lord. Other cases have been cited, for example, the Tunisian girl who was detained at Campsfield House. An intimate paediatric examination was required which determined that she was 17.
  I hope that the Government will give serious consideration to these matters, including the need to obtain appropriate paediatric reports for the assessment of age. But for as long as this matter still raises doubt it is right and proper that we should try to protect young people under the age of 18 from detention. I support the amendment.
  3.30 p.m.
  Lord Judd: I too hope that the Minister will be able to give the amendment serious consideration. The arguments have been well rehearsed, and I simply underline two matters. First, many of these children will already have suffered extraordinary trauma. To impose further trauma upon them is almost unthinkable. Secondly, to make arrangements for their detention, particularly in prison, at a time when the Minister is battling so valiantly against all that is wrong with our prisons and centres of detention for young people is highly questionable. If, in our prisons and centres of detention, the system operated perfectly, perhaps the situation would not be so alarming. I am sure that, whatever the technical difficulties, the Minister will give serious consideration to the amendment.
  Lord Alton of Liverpool: I support the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, in support of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, to which I have added my name. The amendment asserts some important points about the way we treat children. I said in Committee on Monday—the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, made similar points today—that we are considering children first and asylum seekers second. An absolute declaration of the Government's intention that no child should ever be held in a detention centre would be welcome. If it were possible to write on to the face of the Bill a safeguard along the lines set out in Amendments Nos. 114 and 115, that would be desirable.
  The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, referred to the case of a Tunisian girl who was given exceptional leave to remain at the end of the process. Other cases have been brought to our attention by Save the Children. The case of the Nigerian girl, to which the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, spoke, was referred to that organisation by Amnesty International. That illustrates what can happen in these circumstances. In a further case, a Nigerian boy was held at HM Prison Rochester because of an age dispute. Despite the existence of evidence about the boy's age, the immigration service refused to release him. He was eventually released following a paediatric examination which confirmed that he was a minor. He
  978
  was subsequently diagnosed as being severely depressed, with possible post-traumatic stress disorder compounded by his detention. He has been refused asylum and exceptional leave to remain in the UK. These are children first and asylum seekers second.
  I do not believe that there is a world of difference between all those who have spoken today as to the likely response of the Government. However, although I strongly welcome the assurance given by the Government in a Special Standing Committee on 18th May that children detained in social services care would be subject to Section 25 of the Children Act, I believe that the Committee would be assisted by clarification of that assurance; in particular, the conditions under which children would be detained outside that provision. That would go some way to meet the concerns raised by Members of the Committee.
  The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I speak to Amendment No. 115. Surely, there is total agreement that Amendment No. 114 is entirely right. I recall that in the debates on the 1996 Act we ran into the problem of how age was to be determined, especially in cases where youngsters arrived without any documents to support their age. In the event, the proposal for independent paediatric assessment was not accepted and, therefore, there was no provision in that legislation that children could not be detained. I believe that Amendment No. 114 is dependent entirely on finding a way to establish the age of a person, or making a reasonable assessment of age. I am informed by those who are authorities in this matter—I well remember the earlier debates—that it is extremely difficult to determine the age of a young person and that such an assessment may give rise to a discrepancy of anything up to five years.
  Therefore, I believe that the core of Amendment No. 115 lies in subsection (1)(b); namely,
  "a finding of 'reasonable likelihood' from any such assessment shall be construed as though it were confirmation that the person is under the age of 18".
  As I understand it, it is not possible to reach any absolute judgment about age, and therefore the test of "reasonable likelihood" is perhaps the best solution. I support Amendment No. 115 because without it we stand very little chance of getting anywhere with Amendment No. 114.
  Earl Russell: I too support Amendment No. 115, to which I have put my name. The Minister may he glad to know that I shall not attempt to repeat anything I have previously said on the subject. There are two pieces of information, widely separated, in the Ramsbotham report on Campsfield House. One is that no children had been admitted to Campsfield House; the other is that a large number—my memory tells me 49, but I do not swear to it—had been discharged from Campsfield House into the care of Bicester social services. Whatever the brewery advertisements suppose since none of us has yet discovered a way of getting younger, this suggests that the matter of the age of alleged children is open to some doubt.

  979
  Civil wars and civil unrest are not good for records, so the countries from which most asylum seekers come are likely to be in a state where the records are in more than usual confusion. That means that an independent paediatric examination is the only acceptable way of obtaining real evidence and that the test of "reasonable likelihood" in this amendment, however lacking in certainty, is the best we shall ever get. If it is the best we shall ever get, we had better take it.
  Viscount Brentford: I warmly support these two amendments. I believe that the Government's White Paper refused to outlaw the detention of children, arguing that the power to detain had to be kept for limited circumstances. Have the Government considered or publicised the limited circumstances so as to provide guidance to those who have this responsibility? The detention of children is a very important issue. I am sure that all Members of the Committee agree that, wherever possible, we must keep the practice to an absolute minimum. Perhaps we should set out exactly the conditions in which it is absolutely necessary for the Government to detain children.
  The Earl of Sandwich: About 10 years ago I worked with Save the Children on a committee concerned with children in Africa. It was at exactly that time that the Children Act came into force and I became aware of how many organisations and individuals had worked on that legislation. The Minister will give us an assurance that the Children Act carries on. But why is it that so many of the same organisations, 10 years later, looking at this legislation, have decided that it is not adequate and that these new provisions should be inserted?
  The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): I fully understand the intention behind the amendments and although I am unable to support them I think that the Government's aims and those of the mover of the amendment and its supporters are very similar. The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, seeks to deal with concerns about persons where there is no dispute about their being under 18 years of age and those where age is in dispute. It may be helpful to explain to the Committee the policy and practice in respect of unaccompanied minors and children in families, first, where age is not in dispute.
  Unaccompanied minors are only ever detained where absolutely necessary, and even then only for a short period; for example, overnight following arrival if the local social services department is unable to offer immediate assistance. An unaccompanied child claiming asylum or one appealing against a decision to refuse asylum would therefore not be detained save in very limited circumstances until more appropriate care arrangements had been made by the relevant local authority. This position was confirmed in the White Paper; and I confirm it again today.
  The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, says that every effort should be made to avoid detention of under-age children wherever possible. I agree, but we recognise that there are certain limited circumstances
  980
  where it is not possible for a short period of time to avoid detention. In those circumstances, Amendment No. 114, which would prevent detention ever, is not appropriate.
  I give one example of the circumstances in which such detention might be appropriate. A child's application is refused. He lodges an appeal; he absconds; he sleeps rough; he comes to the authorities late one night; and social services cannot respond. Amendment No. 114 means that he could not be sent to a detention centre even for the night.
  Families are detained only as a last resort, most usually when removal directions have been set and it is clear that the family are unlikely to depart from the United Kingdom voluntarily. It would be most unusual for a family to be detained while there was an appeal outstanding against a decision to refuse asylum. Children will never be detained if they have one or both responsible parents to care for them outside detention. Furthermore, if we are advised that the best interests of a child would be met by separation from a detained family, the child will be referred to local authority care.
  It is our view that wherever possible the family should be kept together as a single unit unless the best interests of the child indicate otherwise. In family cases detention should again be for the shortest possible period, usually overnight prior to removal. If further representations are made which necessitate the deferring of removal it would normally be appropriate to release the family. A further consideration is that, as we currently have only one family unit at Tinsley House detention centre, there would be no operational benefit to be gained in using it to detain one family for a lengthy period and so prevent its use for other families who are removable and whose circumstances require short term detention. I hope very much that the assurances I have given will set noble Lords' minds at rest. I shall come to Section 25 of the Children Act in a moment.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: The Minister said that the normal situation would apply in the circumstances to which he alluded. Does he feel that in order to deal with the somewhat abnormal circumstances that can arise it would be helpful to offer some advice or directions to the authorities so that difficulties might be obviated without necessarily including such provisions in the Bill?
  Lord Hylton: Following the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, would the Minister make inquiries to see whether a small pool of foster parents could be recruited, living, if possible, near the principal airports, to meet precisely the emergency situations to which he referred earlier?
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: On the first point of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, it seems obvious that guidance should be given to authorities dealing with the question of the detention of unaccompanied children. Perhaps I may make inquiries as to what guidance will be given. Putting children into foster care is a matter for local authorities to whom children may in certain

  981
  circumstances be remitted in the context of an asylum application. I am unable to give the assurances that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, seeks.
  The second proposed new clause refers to detention in cases where a person's age is in dispute. The instance of asylum seekers claiming to be under 18 is rising. In age dispute cases it is our practice to detain for longer periods only where circumstances demand and we have reasonable grounds for believing that the person is 18 years or over. In reaching a decision on the age of an applicant, we take into account any medical or other information which suggests that the person is a minor. All cases involving minors are referred as a matter of routine to the children's panel of the Refugee Council. In cases of doubt the person concerned is given the benefit of the doubt and will be treated as a child, allowing for his or her release into appropriate care.
  As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, will know, assessment of age is, according to the medical profession, an inexact science. We have been in consultation with the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health on the subject of age assessments. It informs us that medical age assessments are very difficult to make and any statutory provision placing greater weight on medical assessments than is already given under current arrangements would be unwelcome within the medical profession. Amendment No. 115 in effect proposes that a paediatric assessment be done and particular weight given to it. On the basis of the advice we are receiving from the bodies that I have indicated, that would be unwelcome within the medical profession and I think that we are sensible to take its advice.
  In a recent case drawn to our attention by the Refugee Council a consultant paediatrician had assessed the young man's age as 17 years, plus or minus 1½ years. However, in a subsequent interview with an immigration officer, in the presence of his legal representative, the person confirmed that he was 21 years old. This fact was borne out by documentary evidence given by another member of his family.
  I hope that noble Lords are reassured by my assurance that the benefit of the doubt is given wherever possible in cases of age dispute. The introduction of the Government's proposed statutory presumption in favour of bail will provide an added safeguard in all cases, as will the new routine bail hearings provided by Part III of the Bill. Indeed, the special status of minors is to be reflected in the very narrow exception to be drafted to the statutory presumption in respect specifically of minors.
  Amendment No. 115 also proposes that Section 25 of the Children Act 1989 shall apply wherever a child under the age of 18 is detained. Section 25 sets out the circumstances in which a child who is being looked after by a local authority may be placed in secure accommodation and applies in this context without the need for any amendment along the lines proposed.
  Without going into the detail of it, Section 25 of the Children Act sets out very limited circumstances in which a secure accommodation order can be made in respect of a minor. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, asked passionately: why, if everything is all right, as
  982
  I suggest, are these bodies complaining? I have gone through the arrangements carefully. I believe that if one considers the problems legitimately raised in relation to the detention of minors, the Government's thinking and that of noble Lords who raised the point are quite similar. The only difference between us is the body of thought which says, "You should never, come what may, even for a night, detain an unaccompanied minor." We think that there may be certain limited circumstances where that is necessary.
  As regards breach of the United Nations convention on rights of children, there is judicial oversight of detention. Not only are there bail applications, judicial review applications, and habeas corpus applications, but in future there will also be the routine bail applications referred to in the Bill. Indeed, there will he a presumption in favour of bail.
  In certain cases, it may be in the interests of the child to detain him or her for a short period of time until appropriate arrangements are made. Also, there are cases in which age is in dispute. In such cases, investigations are made, but we give the benefit of the doubt to the detainee. We do not see that in those circumstances there would he any breach of the United Nations convention or, in particular, of any of the articles referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, in relation to the proposals we are making. In those circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord will be minded to withdraw his amendment.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: May I press the Minister on two points? The gap between the thinking of those of us who have tabled the amendments arid what the Minister has just said is narrow. I imagine that the question turns on whether it will be possible to indicate on the face of the Bill that only in exceptional cases would a minor be detained, instead of a broader expression of the situation with regard to minors.
  On Amendment No. 114, would it be possible to indicate in circulars to local authorities that minors should not be put in custodial or similar accommodation, but in accommodation suitable for young people, as a way of dealing with children under the Children Act 1989? That would be a simple solution and would not require primary legislation.
  On Amendment No. 115, may I ask the Minister why the drafting of that amendment, in particular subsection (2), does not meet the exact point that he made—that the burden of proof should rest on the immigration authorities rather than on the child? Therefore, in cases in which paediatric specialists hold that there was a reasonable likelihood that the person was in fact under the age of 18, he or she should be treated as a minor.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: As far as the present law is concerned, it is for the courts to determine whether bail is granted. If they remit the child to the local authority, it is entitled to put the child into secure accommodation only if the conditions of Section 25 of the Children Act 1989 are satisfied. They set high tests before the court can make an order for secure

  983
  accommodation. If an order for secure accommodation is not made, it is for each individual local authority to decide what to do. I hope that that meets the point.
  Lord Harris of Greenwich: No.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: As I understood it, the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, was making was, "Please take care to ensure that children under 18 are put in appropriate accommodation and, in particular, not in semi-gaols by local authorities". Children can be put into secure accommodation only if the conditions of Section 25 are satisfied, and that is a matter for the magistrates' court rather than the local authority. Does that meet the point?
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: "Secure accommodation" is a term that can be interpreted in several ways. We are suggesting that secure accommodation should not be custodial accommodation; that is to say, it should not be a prison or a detention centre in any circumstances in which a local authority can provide accommodation more suitable for a minor—for example, local authority secure accommodation, which is not the same as a prison or a detention centre.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Such accommodation is still custodial. That very issue is dealt with in Section 25 of the 1989 Act. I am not sure what the noble Baroness is after on this point. The 1989 Act deals with the question of when local authorities can put a child into "secure accommodation", as defined by that Act. I do not see what more we can do in statutory terms to satisfy the point.
  The second point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, was why we did not make it clear that it was for the immigration authorities to establish the position. First, there is a statutory presumption in favour of bail, so a reason must be given why—in the circumstances of the case and even if age is disputed—bail should not be granted. Secondly, the immigration authorities, as a matter of practice in cases of doubt, treat the person as being under 18. I should have thought that those two factors met the point.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: The evidence that we have received from the Refugee Council and others, including the Save the Children Fund, suggests that the immigration authorities do not always interpret the situation in the way that the Minister suggested. The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, and others gave several precise examples. The noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, gave another, and we could give more. In such cases, the immigration authorities have insisted that someone appeared to be over the age of 18. Although it turned out that they were not over that age, they were detained for some time while the argument continued. The examples given (of a Tunisian girl and a Nigerian boy) did not match the Minister's description of how the immigration authorities proceed.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: It will always be possible to give examples in either direction. I have
  984
  cited—although I do not rely too heavily on it—the case in which someone asserted that they were under 18 and had paediatric evidence to support it, but they turned out to be 21. Where does either sort of example get us? There will always be cases on either side of the line. There will be many cases in which there is a genuine dispute about age and we must grapple with those cases in the statutory procedure we set out.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: These are extremely important points. The Minister mentioned the Children Act 1989. What will be the position of children in Scotland under Scottish legislation? Is it the same? If the Minister has not ascertained that, I should be grateful if he could perhaps write to me. We have to keep an eye on such things these days.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The noble Baroness is absolutely right to raise the matter. I am afraid that I am not in a position to give her an answer and I shall write to her with the details.
  Earl Russell: I shall attempt to be helpful. The Minister asked where all this has got us. That is a fair question and it deserves an answer. In relation to Amendment No. 114, the Minister gave the example of the child who absconds and is found late at night. There are much neglected powers in Section 51 of the Children Act 1989 to send children to a children's refuge, where they may stay for two weeks while their best interests are investigated. Those are important and valuable powers, about which the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, knows much more than I do in connection with his work with Centrepoint. I am glad to observe that he nods. Those powers would be one way to deal with the situation. They would meet the Minister's argument that there are cases in which detention might be in the child's best interests, and would meet also our argument that even if detention is in the child's best interests, it should not be detention under the immigration and asylum legislation, which is not necessarily the most satisfactory form of detention in our legal system.
  On the point about proof of age, the Minister said that determination of age was an inexact science. I have already said as much myself. I understand and respect the doubts and hesitations of the medical profession, but there is sense in Aristotle's maxim that we should seek for no more certainty in any matter than the nature of the matter will admit. Paediatric examination is the greatest certainty available, no matter how small it may be. If the Minister will not accept Amendment No. 115, can he think of a better way to achieve our aim?
  4 p.m.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The problem is that if one takes a child to a children's refuge, there is nothing to stop him running away immediately. Secondly, not all the country is covered by children's refuges. Thirdly, paediatric assessments will not always be the best means of determining age. It will depend very much on the circumstances. For example, in some cases, certain documentary evidence will be more compelling than

  985
  paediatric assessments. We should be wrong in statute to focus on one particular method of proof which may be the most effective only in certain cases.
  Lord Alton of Liverpool: The Minister will appreciate that there is concern not only on the Floor of the House, but among highly respected organisations outside, not least the Save the Children Fund. The organisations which have supported the amendments include UNICEF, Barnardo's, the Children's Society and the Refugee Council's Children's Panel. Would it not be helpful if between now and the Report stage the Minister would agree to meet representatives of those organisations in order to assess whether there is a way to address the paramount issue of the needs and interests of the children? The Minister has conceded that the children's interests should be paramount, which is what the organisations are calling for. The Minister shakes his head and indicates that the children's interests will not be paramount. I find that surprising—
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I have set out the limited circumstances in which children will be detained. Of course we shall be willing to meet representatives of any organisation which has suggestions to make. The organisations which the noble Lord listed are of the highest repute and one would imagine that they do have specific suggestions to make.
  In going through the amendments that have been made, I have tried carefully to analyse the problems and to see whether more needs to be done in the statute to deal with them. As the noble Baroness said, it is a narrow point which comes down to the question of whether the position is such that no child should ever be detained. While recognising that to do so should be exceptional, we realise that there are limited circumstances where it is necessary.
  If I am wrong, please come and tell us. I accept the invitation and my noble friend Lord Williams will see such people. However, what has not been put forward in the debate is a reasoned argument as to why those limited circumstances are not preserved. If there is such an argument, tell us and we shall listen. As yet, it has not been put.
  The noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked whether we should say that paediatric assessment will provide a way out as regards age. We thought very carefully about that and took advice from the Refugee Council and medical bodies. They tell us that that is not necessarily the most reliable way to determine someone's age; it will depend upon the circumstances.
  If there is a better view, let us know, but that is the view that we have formed. We have not been told why it is wrong.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his response and to Members of the Committee who have taken part in this short debate. The Minister was right to emphasise what the noble Baroness said; that the gap is relatively narrow. After all, the Minister's reply was in its tone sympathetic to the points which have been made. He gave two examples, among others, of exceptions of detention
  986
  which did not appear to stand up. The first related to a child being kept overnight in a detention centre because suitable local authority accommodation was not available. It did not strike me that legal custody was required in that case. Clearly, a place for the child to stay was required and it might conveniently be a detention centre. That is different and I should have thought being detained in custody may not amount to much in practice if a child is sleeping in the same bed in the same room, but it is a legal distinction.
  Another example he gave related to the period prior to removal. Amendment No. 114 was successfully framed so as not to affect that. As regards the assessment of age, I understand that sometimes documentary evidence will be available, but sometimes it will be unreliable. I gave an example of false documents, which is highly likely to be the case in the circumstances, particularly in relation to younger children. We recently saw the deliberate destruction of documents in the former Yugoslavia in order to make life difficult for those who would become asylum seekers. It was sometimes done by themselves, sometimes by other people. The statutory presumption in favour of bail, which has been introduced into the Bill, is a safeguard in these circumstances, and that is helpful and welcome.
  The Minister did not refer to young children or to those under 18 being detained in prison, which sometimes occurs. I am sure that he would deplore that, except in circumstances where it may be avoidable. We shall come to that in a later amendment.
  Finally, the Minister seemed to say that Section 25 of the Children Act applies if a local authority is involved, but by implication it does not apply if the child is detained somewhere else; for example, in a detention centre or prison. I must read the Minister's reply carefully in order to make sure that I have understood it correctly. Clearly, these are matters of great concern not only to me but to others who have added their names to the amendments. We shall need to return to them at a later stage when we have fully digested the Ministers comments and considered them with others.
  We are grateful to the Minister for volunteering the services of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, to receive representatives of the organisations concerned. The noble Lord has been extremely generous in giving such assurances on his own behalf so I am sure that he will not mind.
  Subject to what those who have been kind enough to add their names to the amendment may say, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 114.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clauses 60 and 61 agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 115 and 116 not moved.]
  Clause 62 agreed to.
  Clause 63 [Limitation on further appeals]:
  Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby moved Amendment No. 117:
  Page 41, line 20, leave out ("On the issuing of a certificate by the Secretary of State") and insert ("If the Adjudicator agrees with the opinion of the Secretary of State as expressed in a certificate issued").
  The noble Baroness said: At first glance, the amendment may look a great deal less significant than the one that we have just debated. However, it has a considerable bearing on the fairness and justice of the Bill. Clause 63 deals with people who have reached the final appeal stage; that is, who had a first hearing, then an appeal which may have been dismissed.
  Amendment No. 117 deals with the question of whether an applicant will be treated as having already made out his case in an appeal in such a way as not to entitle him to any further appeal. In general, we on this side of the Committee agree that the appeal procedure can be abused and that there is a great deal to be said for limiting the number of appeals to those which can receive a final judgment.
  However, Clause 63 enables the appeal finally to be determined either on the ground that the case has already been heard or on the ground that it was not heard or advanced but could have been. What then happens is that the Secretary of State is permitted to issue a certificate signed by himself, on the strength of which he is able to argue that the appeal will be either upheld or rejected. We are greatly concerned that that makes the Secretary of State the judge of his own court.
  The purpose of the amendment is to make the adjudicator the person who makes the decision on the basis of the certificate. Then, and only then, will the certificate hold on the basis of the opinion of the Secretary of State. In other words, the Secretary of State could not on his own issue a certificate which would end the process of appeal, given that that is the applicant's last chance, without the agreement of the adjudicator.
  It seems to us absolutely critical that the adjudicator should be brought into the process and that the matter should not be left wholly to the Secretary of State. If the Secretary of State were the sole issuer of a certificate, he would in a sense be both judge and jury. Therefore, the amendment seeks to provide that the adjudicator must agree to the issue of the certificate. Again, I remind the Committee that that brings the whole process to an end. I am particularly concerned that some appellants, especially those without legal advice, may be unaware of the complex grounds on which an appeal can be made; for example, with regard to the European Convention on Human Rights, or other international conventions. I therefore repeat that in our view it is absolutely critical that the adjudicator should be part of the process and that only with his agreement can the whole matter be brought to a conclusion. I beg to move.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: I rise to support the amendment. Looking at the matter, it seemed to me to be the case that one party to the granting or otherwise of the possibility of an appeal was to make the decision
  988
  rather than the adjudicator who is the judicial authority in this case. Not being highly legally educated, I could not think of any other example in British law in which one of the parties—in this case, the Secretary of State—made the decision as to whether or not the appeal should be allowed. If there are other examples, no doubt the Minister will point them out to us.
  Earl Russell: Perhaps I may ask the Minister a question which I am sure he is legally well qualified to answer. Will he explain why, in the Government's opinion, this provision does not lay the Secretary of State open to judicial review as being judge and party in his own court? If he is any danger from that, my noble friend's amendment would save him from it. I believe that he ought to be grateful.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: The purpose of the amendment is to remove the Secretary of State's ability to thwart repeat appeals, which the noble Baroness condemned, by certifying that the grounds for further appeal contain nothing which has not already been considered. Clause 63(6) states:
  "On the issuing of a certificate by the Secretary of State under subsection (5), the appeal"—
  I emphasise the next words—
  "so far as relating to those grounds, is to be treated as finally determined".
  The circumscription is there, and it is deliberate. It means that we are looking to a new system to prevent people making a series of appeals on the same issues. I am sorry to repeat that again. I must say—I hope that it will be to the comfort of the Committee—that where a genuinely new situation arises after the determination of the appeal, we cannot and should not deny a fresh hearing if a further right of appeal exists. I give the Committee an example. A person may make a further claim, having already failed to become a refugee here, if there has been a coup in the country of origin. That would not disentitle any application or appeal to be brought forward by virtue of the Secretary of State's certificate.
  I am quite unable to accept that there should be a fresh hearing if all the issues have already been determined by the appellate authority. If the amendment were accepted, there would have to be a hearing in every case for the adjudicator to agree the Secretary of State's certificate—in other words, a completely pointless exercise. If the proposal of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, were to be accepted as a protection for the Home Secretary from legal challenge, I should be the first to accept it. But I must point out that although the certificate is expressed in the way that it is expressed, judicial review can be brought against the issue of the certificate on the normal grounds for judicial review.
  Bearing in mind the emphasis I have given to those grounds, we are really saying that if the grounds are the same, and they have been fully ventilated, the Secretary of State is entitled to certify that. If he behaves in a way which is susceptible to judicial review, that remains.
  4.15 p.m.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: I am generally puzzled by the Minister's response. Perhaps he may be able to help me to understand it better. Like the Minister, we do not want to see a system under which people may appeal on grounds already advanced; nor do we want to see a system where someone may appeal who could perfectly well have advanced those grounds earlier but chose not to do so. We fully share the Minister's desire to conclude the process. However, with respect, our argument is different; namely, that in concluding the process, the Secretary of State should not be the sole decision-maker, but should couple with his views those of the adjudicator, who will, for those purposes, be treated as independent of the immigration authorities in a way that no Home Secretary can be as they are answerable and accountable to him.
  We have no desire to prolong the appeal process, provided that the adjudicator and the Home Secretary are of one mind. If they are not, in our view the matter should not be concluded. An exact parallel can be drawn with paragraph 9 of Schedule 4, the wording of which we drew on for our amendment. In respect of convention cases, paragraph 9(2) states:
  "If, on an appeal to which this paragraph applies, the adjudicator agrees that the claim is one to which this paragraph applies, paragraph 22 does not confer on the appellant any right to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal".
  In other words, that is another instance of certification which brings to an end the process of appeal. In this case, the issue of judge and jury in one's own court is properly dealt with because the adjudicator must agree with the certificate. That is all that our amendment seeks to achieve. With great respect, I did not follow the Minister's argument on that point.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am sure that that was my fault. I was trying to say that we believe that the certification by the Secretary of State is perfectly rational and can be upheld as a system, because he is required to certify that all the grounds have been considered earlier and that there is nothing further on which the adjudicator needs to decide. There is no live issue left.
  The consequence of the noble Baroness's amendment, were it to be accepted, would simply be a further spinning out of the process. As I said earlier, there would have to be a hearing before the adjudicator—
  Lord Avebury: As the Minister has twice mentioned a hearing, will he confirm that there is nothing in the amendment which says that the adjudicator must have a hearing for the purpose of reaching his decision? My noble friend is suggesting that he should confirm that the grounds on which the appeal would be based are a repetition of those which have been heard earlier. He is simply confirming the opinion of the Secretary of State that that was the case. Surely he can do that without a hearing.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I imagine that the legal approach in those circumstances would be what we have already discovered. If the adjudicator comes to a view,
  990
  both parties will be entitled to be heard by him in that judicial context. I have no doubt that that would he used yet again as a device to spin out the procedures in a way that is quite illegitimate. I stress that we are dealing with a certificate that is judicially reviewable. It is a certificate from the Home Secretary to say that the matter has already been considered.
  I shall certainly give some thought to the matter. I can give no more favourable reception than that. The circumstances envisaged by paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 are different. Before we look at sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 9 we need to examine the context—convention cases and those involving removal from the jurisdiction. There are quite different circumstances, which is why we have adopted a different approach.
  I shall give careful thought to what the noble Baroness said. I believe that we have struck the right balance to give people fair hearings, fair opportunity and fair legal representation, but, at the end of the day, we can say that all the matters have been adjudicated upon and there is nothing new in the appeal.
  Lord Harris of Greenwich: Many of us welcome the fact that the Minister has said that he will look at the matter again without commitment. The Minister must recognise that none of us favours an endless series of appeals on precisely the same issue. Clearly, that would be an abuse of the system.
  I want to raise two points. First, I would be grateful if the Minister could answer the point put to him by the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley. Is there a precedent for the power being given to a Minister to bring an appeal process to an end? That may be impossible to answer, given the constraints of time.
  Secondly, like my noble friends Lord Avebury and Lady Williams of Crosby, I believe that the adjudicator could be the person to make the determination rather than the Secretary of State. Otherwise, there will inevitably be a belief that the Secretary of State is acting as judge in a matter in which it would be inappropriate for him to make the final judgment. I can see no difficulty about allowing the adjudicator to make that decision. I do not want to press the point today, but I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will review the matter. Inevitably we shall want to return to it on Report. The quality of the Bill might be improved if the Government were to make concessions, which would be welcomed by all.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: That is a most generous approach, as I invariably expect from the noble Lord. I shall certainly look at the proposal. Any tinkering is likely not to produce the result that we all want. All noble Lords who have spoken have adopted that view.
  Perhaps I should respond to the wholly unfair question from the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, accusing me of possessing a vast reservoir of legal knowledge. Experienced as I am in paddling in extremely shallow waters, I shall take up what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said and carry out some research. I am sure that there are examples—I can think of one or two—but, to my mind, they may not be

  991
  the most compelling. I shall certainly look into the matter. I am sure I can find some. I almost said dredge some up. I shall look at them and take up the offer of the noble Lord.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby moved Amendment No. 118:
  Page 41, line 34, at end insert—
  ("(11) Nothing in this section shall apply to an appellant who was not legally represented at the time of his original appeal.").
  The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 118 is simple but, like the last amendment, important. It provides that the dismissal of the entire appeal process, implicit in Clause 64, will not occur if the original appeal has been held without the applicant having legal advice.
  In the course of the Bill we have discussed the extreme importance of the applicant having legal advice. All noble Lords recognise how incredibly complex immigration law has now become, made yet more complicated by the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into British law. Anyone familiar with immigration laws knows that they need a comprehensive understanding of British law, some understanding of European conventions, some understanding of international conventions and some understanding of the immigration rules, which are being revised at the present time, as well as codes and conducts of practice.
  That means that someone who may not be an English speaker, who may have arrived in this country in a state of great stress and strain and who has little knowledge of any of the matters I have briefly outlined, is in no position to make out his or her own case, however strong that case may be. That is why on these Benches we strongly accept and support the idea that legal aid should be given only to recognised and registered practitioners and to well established centres of legal advice.
  We recognise that the sheer complexities of immigration law are an open door to some of the most dubious, racketeering and undesirable practitioners of the law that one could want to meet. Incidentally, some of them hang around ports in the hope of persuading innocent asylum seekers to accept their services. Often those services are not worth the time of day, let alone the considerable costs which asylum seekers are driven to pay. We are all familiar with such terrible cases where the legal representative does not show up or does not give the proper advice, or does not bother to try to give the proper advice. In all those matters we are wholly on the side of the Government.
  The point of the amendment is that if an asylum seeker tries to handle his own hearing, perhaps because he cannot afford legal advice or does not have a decent legal adviser, he will find it extremely difficult to make out a case in a way that fully reflects the facts of that case. If he attends an initial hearing, where he will
  992
  probably not be represented, and continues to a first appeal, where again he may not be represented—this amendment deals only with people who have no legal advice—the curtailing of appeal rights will mean that he can have no further voice in the matter and will be deported to a country where he may be at risk of life and limb. We believe that that is acceptable only in a situation where the asylum seeker has had decent legal representation.
  The purpose of the amendment is to propose that while we accept the curtailing of the appeal process to a single one-stop appeal, we do not feel able to accept and support that position in the event of an asylum seeker having no legal advice at all at either the first or second and final stage of the hearing. I beg to move.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: It is suggested that we discuss Amendment No. 120, standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Astor, together with Amendment No. 118. My only hesitation about giving total support to Amendment No. 118—I hope the Minister will not think it unfair of me—is that it goes some way to making the use of lawyers compulsory. I am hesitant about that. I accept the point that immigration law is now incredibly complicated, made more so as a result of these provisions, but Amendment No. 120 suggests that when an immigration officer serves a notice on an applicant, the notice should specifically advise that legal advice should be sought on receipt of such a notice. That does not make it compulsory but it encourages applicants to go for legal advice and makes clear that it is legally advisable before they become entangled in the appeals process, which might have enormous consequences for them.
  4.30 p.m.
  Lord Alton of Liverpool: I support the tenor of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, though his amendment does not go as far as I would wish. Telling people that legal advice is available is a useful first step; but in most cases, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, said, it is desirable that an appellant should be properly represented at a hearing.
  My difficulty with Amendment No. 118 is that it could lead to circumstances where someone deliberately chose not to be represented so that the other parts of the section in which this was included would not then apply. It could therefore be used as an instrument of obstruction and achieve some of the undesirable possibilities described by the noble Baroness that she would not want to support.
  The basic argument that someone should be properly represented during proceedings is the right one and if a more felicitous form of wording could be devised to ensure that it is not open to abuse, it is an argument which we should take seriously.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am grateful for what has been said. I do not believe that there is a fundamental difference of approach between us.

  993
  If Amendment No. 118 was adopted, the mischief identified by the noble Lords, Lord Alton of Liverpool and Lord Cope, would be available. We are looking to prevent repetitious or late claims of no merit. It would be wrong to avoid further opportunities by allowing someone to say, "I do not want to be represented".
  I am happy to remind the Committee that when notices of an appealable decision are served, the applicant has to be given, by virtue of the Immigration Appeals Notices Regulations 1984—I repeat, "must" be given—details of how to obtain free representation. It is not right then that applicants can deliberately avoid the consequences of Clause 63 simply by electing to represent themselves.
  Taking up the point made by the noble Baroness, there is nothing to stop the unscrupulous adviser acting outside the system taking rapacious amounts of money and saying, "My best advice to you is to turn up without representation". That is an obvious mischief which could be the consequence of her amendment. But I ought to go further and say what the practice is.
  Adjudicators will not normally allow a case to proceed without representation unless satisfied that the appellant is able to argue his case—I take her point about him not being familiar with the English language. Sometimes the case is adjourned for representation to be arranged; on other occasions a duty counsellor is called in. That is what happens at the moment. I hope I have been able to reassure the Committee as to how the system works; how it is intended to work in the future; and how Amendment No. 118 would produce undesirable consequences.
  I am entirely in agreement with what has been said in relation to Amendment No. 120; that those who are given notice: should be advised to obtain legal assistance. But we go further and say that the legal adviser must be a qualified person by virtue of Clause 74, about which we have spoken on earlier occasions. Clause 64(9) provides for regulations to prescribe the procedures for serving notices. It is more appropriate for this point to be covered in regulations and I am happy to undertake to the Committee that that will be done.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: I thank the Minister for that explanation, which goes a long way to meet the concerns I expressed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 63 agreed to.
  Clause 64 [Duty to disclose grounds for appeal etc.]:
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 118ZA:
  Page 42, line 2, at end insert—
  ("() This section also applies if—

  (a) the Secretary of State has decided to make a deportation order against a person under section 5(1) of the 1971 Act as a result of his liability to deportation under section 3(5) of that Act; and

  (b) that person, while he is in the United Kingdom, is entitled to appeal against that decision under the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 or this Act.").

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 118A not moved.]
  Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 119:
  Page 42, line 3, leave out subsection (3)
  The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 119 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 121. I can he brief because this amendment flows from the report of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee and its comments that the House may wish to consider whether the Bill should be amended to place the categories concerned on the face of the Bill, leaving the regulations to make any necessary adaptation. My amendments crudely followed up the point made by the committee. The reason I can be brief is that both amendments have been supported by the Minister on the Marshalled List. I have every hope therefore that he will speak in their favour. I beg to move.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: This group consists of Amendments Nos. 119, 121, 121A, 122D, 207B and 210B. I am grateful for the explanation of the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, and, as he said, we are in agreement with the principle. We accepted with gratitude the recommendation of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation in respect of the regulation-making powers in Clause 64. But we tabled additional amendments to go a little further than Amendments Nos. 119 and 121.
  The new clause following Clause 64 sets out the categories of case to which the regulations would have applied the one-stop procedures. Much of it simply reflects the equivalent provisions of Clause 64, which the Committee has already agreed. The additional categories are illegal entrants, overstayers and port applicants without a form of pre-clearance on arrival. The one-stop procedures will apply to those if, and only if, they make a claim that removal or requirement to leave would be contrary to either the refugee convention or the human rights convention. The purpose is to ensure that such persons do not claim under one convention and, if that claim is refused, claim under the other.
  Amendments Nos. 122D, 207B and 210B are consequential. They essentially speak for themselves and I am happy to accede to the noble Lord's invitation and commend the amendments.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: I am also grateful to the Minister, in particular for his response to the report of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. However, will the regulations under the new Amendment No. 121A following Clause 64 be subject to the affirmative or negative resolution?
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I believe our present experience is described as a "short hiatus" while I obtain confirmation that what I am about to say is accurate. I do not want to give misleading or incomplete information. I understand it is negative, but wanted to be sure.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 120 not moved.]
  Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby moved Amendment No. 120YA:
  Page 42, line 14, at end insert ("and, where the applicant is a child, such period shall take account of any relevant circumstances applicable to the serving of the notice").
  The noble Baroness said: The amendment speaks for itself and I shall not waste the time of the Committee. We simply ask that the period shall take account of relevant circumstances because repeatedly UNICEF, Save the Children Fund and others have pointed out that it often takes a good deal longer to obtain information from a child than from an adult, particularly where there may have to be the establishing of some sort of relationship of trust between the child and the person questioning that child and trying to put together a case. I beg to move.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: This group consists of Amendments Nos. 120YA, 120ZA and 122. Perhaps I can deal with our response generally.
  We want to avoid unnecessary delays and this group of amendments, if accepted, would provide that the serving of a statement from a child applicant to the Secretary of State might, without penalty, exceed the period prescribed. I share the concern underlying these amendments relating to children, which is the same fountain of concern which caused the more lengthy discussions when my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer was dealing with earlier amendments.
  I hope that I can persuade the Committee that these amendments are unnecessary. I am happy to repeat that each application will be considered on its merits. Generally speaking, a failure to meet a deadline by a person who genuinely could not comply with it for reasons beyond their control would be considered a "reasonable excuse". I remind the Committee that that saver is to be found in Clause 65(3)(b).
  Children, in particular those without a responsible adult acting for them or assisting them, may well come within the category of those persons who had a reasonable excuse for not meeting the deadline. That is one of the reasons why we have the "reasonable excuse" saver. I personally believe that it is better to have that general discretion rather than try to limit matters. I hope that I have been able to satisfy the noble Baroness that that would be a saver which would enable children in those circumstances to be given decent consideration.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: Amendment No. 120ZA in my name, although it is worded slightly differently, goes to the same point. I am reassured by what the Minister has said. The noble Baroness may wish to withdraw her amendment.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 120ZA and 120A not moved.]
  Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 121:
  Page 42, line 26, leave out subsection (10).
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 64, as amended, agreed to.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 121A:
  After Clause 64, insert the following new clause—

  DUTY TO DISCLOSE GROUNDS FOR ENTERING ETC THE UNITED KINGDOM
  (" .—(1) This section applies if a person who—

  (a) is an illegal entrant,

  (b) is liable to be removed under section 8, or

  (c) has arrived in the United Kingdom without—

  (i) leave to enter;

  (ii) an entry clearance; or

  (iii) a current work permit in which he is named,

  makes a claim for asylum or a claim that it would be contrary to the United Kingdom's obligations under the Human Rights Convention for him to be removed from, or required to leave, the United Kingdom.
  (2) The person responsible for the determination of the claim must serve on the claimant and on any relevant member of his family a notice requiring the recipient of the notice to state any additional grounds which he has or may have for wishing to enter or remain in the United Kingdom.
  (3) The statement must be—

  (a) in writing; and

  (b) served on the person who is responsible for the determination of the claim before the end of such period as may be prescribed.

  (4) Regulations may prescribe the procedure to be followed in connection with notices given and statements made in accordance with this section and, in particular, may prescribe the form in which such notices and statements are to be given or made.
  (5) Regulations may prescribe the persons who, in relation to a claimant, are relevant members of his family.
  (6) Regulations may provide that, if a claim is determined against the claimant, prescribed provisions of section 63, 65, 66 or 67 are to apply to an appeal against that determination by a person on whom a notice has been served under subsection (2), with such modifications (if any) as may he prescribed.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 65 [Result of failure to comply with section 64]:
  [Amendment No. 122 not moved.]
  Clause 65 agreed to.
  Clause 66 agreed to.
  Clause 67 ["One-stop" appeals: other cases]:
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 122A:
  Page 44, line 5, leave out ("Special Immigration Appeals").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 67, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 68 [Transfer of appellate proceedings]:
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 122B:
  Page 44, line 10, after ("2(1)") insert ("or 2A").
  The noble Lord said: In this group we find Amendments Nos. 122B, 122E, 217A and 217B. I speak first to Amendment No. 217B, which relates, as the Committee will have seen, to Schedule 13 to the Bill. That schedule concerns consequential amendments to other Acts as a result of provisions in this Bill.
  Amendment No. 217B concerns a consequential amendment to the Special Immigration and Appeals Act 1997. It puts into the 1997 Act a new Section 2A, which gives jurisdiction to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission to hear appeals concerning claims that an authority acted in breach of the appellant's human rights appeals. It is clearly vital that, in a case where SIAC is involved, it is possible for it to take into account any claims based on human rights grounds. At the moment, by virtue of Clause 55, it is not possible and that is why this amendment is necessary.
  Amendments Nos. 122B and 122E are consequential amendments to Clause 68 of the Bill, inserting a reference to the new Section 2A of the 1997 Act. Those are the purposes of those amendments. Amendment No. 217A is also in this group. It relates to the fact that under the present legislation in Section 2(1) of the 1997 Act, there is a right of appeal to the SIAC only in cases covered by Section 13(1) of the Immigration Act 1971, which deals with refusal of leave to enter, and not to cases covered by Section 13(2) of the 1971 Act, which deals with refusal of entry clearance.
  The Government's intention is to make similar provisions in this Bill. The current text of paragraph 100 of Schedule 13 inadvertently extends jurisdiction to the refusal of entry clearance. Amendment No. 217A puts that right. In other words, no right of appeal is being removed. It is simply a continuance of the present circumstances. Accordingly, in due time I shall move those amendments formally. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  4.45 p.m.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 122C:
  Page 44, line 12, leave out ("Special Immigration Appeals").
  The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: I apologise if I failed to follow the Minister's exact words. Can he remind the Committee by whom the appeal will be heard after transfer? It will not be the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. Therefore, to whom will the appeal be passed as a result of this amendment since the phrase now remaining is simply "commission" with no reference to what commission?
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I shall take instructions on that. In maintaining the status quo I should have fully familiarised myself with that under the 1971 Act. Perhaps the Committee will allow me a moment to take those instructions. I know that they are coming hot-foot. Entirely as I anticipated and as I said earlier, this is simply a drafting amendment. One finds the definition of "commission"—I should have known this—in Clause 155. Therefore, I hope that the answer to the question from the noble Baroness is to be found in the definition in that clause.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: I am grateful to the Minister. I suggest he amends his remarks by removing the word "entirely".
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 122D:
  Page 44, line 15, after ('64") insert ("or (Duty to disclose grounds for entering etc the United Kingdom)").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 122E:
  Page 44, line 16, after ("2(1)") insert ("or 2A").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 122F:
  Page 44, line 19, leave out ("Special Immigration Appeals").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 68, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 69 agreed to.
  Clause 70 [EEA nationals]:
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 122G:
  Page 45, line 6, after ("national") insert or a member of the family of an EEA national,").
  The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 122H, 122J, 122K, 122L and 122M. These amendments relate to EEA nationals and their family members. Amendment No. 122H, if it is accepted, extends the circumstances in which provision for appeals may be made under the regulations to include entitlement conferred under agreements by which the United Kingdom is bound. That will ensure that we can fulfil our obligations to provide appeal rights whether they are contained in agreements to which the United Kingdom is a party or in agreements by which the United Kingdom is hound, although not a party; for example, certain agreements between the Community and third countries. Such agreements may already be in existence or may come into existence in the future.
  Amendment No. 122J allows for regulations to make any necessary amendments to the provisions of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 and the Immigration (European Economic Area) Order 1994. Amendment No. 122K removes from the definition of an "EEA national" a person who is, or who claims to be, a family member. This is because Amendment No. 122L requires a person claiming to he an EEA national to produce certain documents, which will not necessary be relevant to family members. It was, therefore, inappropriate to include family members within the definition of "EEA national". However, Amendment No. 122M enables the regulations to prescribe who, in relation to an EEA national, is a family member and to make provision for establishing how such family membership is to be established.
  Amendment No. 122L requires an EEA national to produce a valid passport or national identity card issued by an EEA state in order to exercise a right of appeal under Clause 70. This is to prevent a person claiming that he is an EEA national and being afforded a right of

  999
  appeal, even though no proof of his alleged status has been seen. The effect of subsection (8B) is to clarify that a passport or an identity card, produced for the purposes of subsection (8A), will be regarded as genuine unless its falsity is reasonably apparent, or unless it is reasonably apparent that it relates to another person. I ask Members of the Committee to accept these amendments. At this point, I beg to move the first of them.
  Earl Russell: Perhaps I may ask a small question about Amendment No. 122M. This is the amendment which relates to membership of a family being defined in such a way "as may be prescribed". The question relates more to drafting than substance. I wonder whether prescription by regulation is the correct way to proceed in this case, or whether it would be better to leave it to be established in the courts or in tribunals, according to precedent. That would apply especially to the families of asylum seekers, which are likely to be fractured.
  Families may take unexpected forms. The case occurs to me of a Kosovar child accompanied by an aunt, the parents being dead. They claimed to be a family, but there was some problem in getting the authorities to accept this. If one proceeds by simple, total enumeration by regulation, one may be liable to miss some quite unexpected family forms which stress may produce. Would it not be better to leave the judicial authority to recognise a family when it sees one, rather than being quite so prescriptive through regulation? This point runs through the drafting of a great many different statutes. I raise the matter at this point because this is one of the many places where I believe that the question applies. I hope that the usual process of osmosis, by which information reaches Ministers in this Chamber, has run its course.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am most grateful to the noble Earl for speaking with such extended clarity; indeed, the osmotic process was about to take its course. The noble Earl has made a fair point. However, one has to balance the benefit of regulation and prescription because it does give clarity and, therefore, certainty to those who may otherwise be uncertain. Nevertheless, I take the noble Earl's point that, sometimes, one does not want over-prescription. I shall certainly think about what he said, but the balance is quite a difficult one to strike. The noble Earl is quite right. Family circumstances do change, not simply in the international connection but also in the domestic connection; and what one feels ought to be a familial relationship—and was such in 1849—is not necessarily so in 1999.
  We need clarity and certainty. That is why we have taken this route. Of course, any prescription by way of regulation would be obliged to comply with EU law; indeed, that may be another aspect that we shall need to consider. I recognise that there is an underlying validity to what is really a philosophical approach by the noble Earl. Perhaps I may think about it. If he returns to the
  1000
  question on Report, I imagine that we shall have a concluded view at that stage. That view may remain unchanged, but it will not remain unconsidered.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: I understand that a change has been made to a schedule to the Bill as regards removing the words, "child of a head of a family or his or her spouse", which does in fact widen the area within which family members can be included. I speak with some feeling here because two members of my own family have become family members because of the unexpected deaths of my brother and his wife; indeed, they are effectively my son and daughter. Will the Minister consider the possibility of picking up the phraseology used in the schedule and, possibly, translating it into this part of the Bill?
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: It seems to me that if we stick to the regulations path, as is more likely than not to be the case, it might be appropriate to pick up the references in the schedule and place them in the regulations. I do not put forward that suggestion as a nit-pick; I am simply saying that there is virtue in what the noble Baroness has said and that we might also need to consider that possibility. However, I think that it would end up in regulations rather than in this clause of the Bill.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments No. 122H to 122M:
  Page 45, line 14, at end insert ("or by which it is bound").
  Page 45, line 25, at end insert—
  ("() The regulations may—

  (a) amend sections 2 and 2A of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 (appellate jurisdiction of the Commission);

  (b) amend or revoke the Immigration (European Economic Area) Order 1994.").

  Page 45, line 30, leave out paragraph (b).
  Page 45, line 32, at end insert—
  ("(8A) If a person claims to be an EEA national, he may not appeal under the regulations unless he produces—

  (a) a valid national identity card, or

  (b) a valid passport,

  issued by an EEA State other than the United Kingdom.
  (8B) For the purposes of subsection (8A), a document—

  (a) is to be regarded as being what it purports to be unless its falsity is reasonably apparent; and

  (b) is to be regarded as relating to the person producing it unless it is reasonably apparent that it relates to another person.").

  Page 45, line 33, leave out subsection (9) and insert—
  ("() Regulations may—

  (a) prescribe the persons who, in relation to an EEA national, are the members of his family; and

  (b) make provision as to the manner in which membership of a person's family is to be established.").

  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 122N:
  Page 45, line 37, leave out subsection (11).
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 70, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 71 [Grants to voluntary organisations]:
  [Amendment No. 123 not moved.]
  Clause 71 agreed to.
  Clause 72 [Interpretation of Part V]:
  Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 124:
  Page 46, line 6, at end insert—
  (""business" excludes any registered or exempt charity;").
  The noble Viscount said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 141. These are both probing amendments, so I can be very brief. The first amendment seeks to ask the Minister whether charities have to register as a "qualified person" to provide immigration advice or services. We should also like to know the difference between, say, a charity doing this and a legal adviser or, indeed, a business. Can the Minister say how that works?
  The second amendment slightly widens the question and also concerns advisers and voluntary organisations. It probes what the commissioner may, or may not, have to take into account with regard to voluntary organisations. We seek a brief explanation from the Minister. I beg to move.
  Lord Dholakia: I support these amendments. I believe that an explanation in this respect would be very helpful. Although we are trying to regulate those who exploit asylum seekers, especially as regards heavy financial charges, we should bear in mind that one of the difficulties here is that there are some legitimate bodies, including charities, which perform a very useful task. I have in mind students' unions, for example, which students quite often consult for advice and help. There are also a number of local bodies with no financial interest whatever in such matters which are able to offer assistance, or at least to direct individuals in the right way to approach their particular case. We want to know how such exemptions will apply to bodies which are genuine. In trying to regulate those who exploit, we do not want to harm those who carry out very valuable work in this particular field.
  Lord Avebury: Can the Minister remind us of the position in this respect of Members of this and another place?
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: If I understand the noble Lord correctly, I believe I dealt with this point earlier in the proceedings on the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, asked whether Members of Parliament—I beg their pardon, I meant Members of another place—might he liable to criminal sanction if they were carrying out their ordinary constituency business in such circumstances. With a certain measure of regret, I had to tell him that Members of the House of Commons would not be liable to criminal sanction because they
  1002
  would not be discharging their functions in the course of a trade or a business. I believe that that answers the noble Lord's question.
  I am grateful to Members of the Committee for the questions which have been put, and especially for the way that the issue has been approached. I believe that we are absolutely in agreement. I am also grateful to the noble Viscount for saying that these are probing amendments to ascertain the Government's view on this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, made exactly the same point.
  Amendment No. 124 would exclude any registered or exempt charity from the requirements of Part V of the Bill. As the Committee knows, Part V is critically important. I was grateful to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, on this matter. He has made his position absolutely plain in the past. We want to stop unscrupulous and incompetent advice being offered. Obviously if it is unscrupulous advice which is being used to prey on people, that is morally wrong. However, incompetent advice is also a scandal as regards those who are far away from their own homeland in a country which is foreign to them in every respect.
  I am happy to be able to say that Home Office officials have on a number of occasions met representatives of the voluntary sectors who provide immigration advice and services. The voluntary sector recognises—most responsibly, I think—that some organisations are well meaning but are simply not competent. I believe that it is accepted by the voluntary sector generally that such organisations need to be regulated.
  Exemption is allowable under paragraphs (a) and (d) of Clause 74(4). What we have done so far—I am happy to repeat this commitment—is to work with the voluntary sector and with the education sector on the exemption process. As I have said, we have had a series of meetings. We are developing the possible criteria for exemption. We do not want to exclude charitable organisations in this area, but we want to exclude incompetent advice. We do not think that one ought to exempt a body until that body has demonstrated that it meets the proper criteria for exemption which I mentioned a moment or two ago. There will be a lead-in period between the commencement of the scheme and the prohibition on the provision of immigration advice and services to allow persons to seek either registration or exemption.
  I am sorry to say that some voluntary bodies although well meaning are just not competent. In the particular context of Amendment No. 141, I do not think it is right or properly protective of those who need protection to allow incompetent activities to go unregulated for a period of three years.
  5 p.m.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: I hope that the. Minister will allow me to intervene. I think that he agrees that this is an important point. I have considered paragraphs (a) and (d) of Clause 74(4). In the absence of the right reverend Prelates. I ask the Minister about the position of the Churches and visitors to detention

  1003
  centres as regards this matter. If a member of a church—let us say a priest, vicar or rabbi—is approached by an asylum seeker (as they often are because, as the Minister will know, they work closely with them) and is asked for advice on, for example, making an appeal, to what extent would the Bill as it now stands catch what is, as it were, friendly advice from someone whom the asylum seeker considers is unlikely to be a dubious figure? Obviously it is part of the job of such a member of a religious faith to offer such help and advice. He may, unwittingly, give incompetent advice because he may not be fully cognisant of immigration law.
  Those who visit asylum seekers were, quite rightly, praised at an earlier stage of the Committee. They, too, are often asked for general help and advice; for example, advice on obtaining legal representation. To what extent would that kind of well meaning help—offered by people who are not likely to seek registration because this activity constitutes only a small part of their normal activities—be caught by the Bill?
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I shall expand on the rather Delphic answer I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, because I had dealt with the matter at greater length when replying to the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, on an earlier occasion. I hope that I can reassure the absent right reverend Prelates through their present earthly representative!
  I think that the answer is to be found in Clause 72, the interpretation clause. Clause 72(1) defines "immigration advice". I do not think it is helpful to the Committee to read that out as it speaks for itself. "Immigration services"—another aspect that the noble Baroness mentioned—are also defined there. However—I think this is of comfort to the noble Baroness—Clause 72(2) states,
  "In this Part, references to the provision of immigration advice or immigration services are to … and in the course of a business carried on (whether or not for profit) by him or by another person".
  I cannot see that a voluntary visitor to an asylum seeker in detention is offering advice or services,
  in the course of a business";
  nor would the members of a church be providing advice,
  "in the course of a business".
  That is the same general saver, as it were, that I mentioned when the noble Lord, Lord Cope, asked me about the position of a Member of the Commons going about his constituency business. I believe that this is the same point as was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, some days ago and by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, this afternoon. It is now raised by the noble Baroness.
  Viscount Astor: I hope that the Minister can clarify a point for me. Is a charity carrying on a business? I am not sure whether a charity or a voluntary organisation that is offering advice would be carrying on a business under the Minister's definition.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: Some charities carry on businesses. One thinks, for example, of charity shops. Those are undoubtedly businesses. I repeat that the
  1004
  scheme we are discussing does not seek to catch the well meaning Member of Parliament, Member of this Chamber—I refer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury—or members of organised religious bodies, as mentioned by the noble Baroness. There are capacities and capabilities for exemption, but it is right that—in order to protect people who need protection—such bodies should be able to meet the relevant criteria. I stress that the relevant criteria and the methods of examination, as it were, are the subject of continuing dialogue with charitable and voluntary organisations. I have no doubt at all that many charitable and voluntary organisations will be exempt from the measure. However, a minority of them are well meaning and good-hearted but have disastrous effects.
  Lord Dholakia: I hope that I may press the Minister a little further. Earlier I mentioned the Legal Aid Board which has sent a document to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and has made a number of recommendations to him. I understand that some discussions have occurred on access to quality immigration services. I do not expect a reply to that point now, but it may be helpful to know the Lord Chancellor's reaction to that document. I hope that the Minister will write to me on that point and place a copy of the letter in the Library.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I shall certainly do that. When the noble Lord raised this matter on a previous occasion, I believe that I said that discussions were still continuing. However, I shall try to establish the up-to-date position before we rise for the Summer Recess. Of course, I shall, as always, place a copy of my letter to the noble Lord in the Library.
  Viscount Astor: I am sure that the Committee is grateful to the Minister for his reply to these amendments. I believe that voluntary organisations will want to consider whether or not they are carrying on a business. However, I also believe that this issue will become clearer as the summer progresses. No doubt if there is a problem here, we shall have an opportunity to return to the matter on Report. As I said, I am grateful for the Minister's reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 124A:
  Page 46, line 15, at end insert—
  (""designated judge" has the same meaning as in section 119(1) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990:").
  The noble Lord said: With this amendment are grouped Amendments Nos. 125A, 126, 128, 128C, 129A, 131A, 131B, 132, 144A, 145, 145A, 149 and 149A. Therefore, this is quite an extensive group!
  Amendment No. 125A requires the Secretary of State to consult the Scottish Ministers prior to appointing the commissioner. This amendment is being made to match the requirement on the Secretary of State to consult the Lord Chancellor prior to the appointment of the

  1005
  commissioner. We think it is right that he should consult the appropriate body in Scotland prior to this appointment.
  Amendment No. 126 would have the effect of requiring the Secretary of State to consult the Advocate General for Scotland about the appointment of the commissioner. Government Amendment No. 125A requires consultation with the Scottish Ministers so the present amendment is unnecessary. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed—not because it was a wrong approach, but because we have dealt with it in an appropriate way.
  Amendment No. 128 would require the immigration services commissioner to consult each of the designated professional bodies and other persons appearing to him to represent the views of persons engaged in the provision of immigration advice or services as he considers appropriate before making or altering the commissioner's rules.
  The commissioner's rules apply to those who are registered with the commissioner. Practising members of the designated professional bodies are not required to register with the commissioner and are therefore not affected by any rules which the commissioner may make in respect of registered persons.
  The commissioner is already required to consult those persons appearing to him to represent the views of such persons engaged in the provision of immigration advice or services as he considers appropriate. He may choose to consult the designated professional bodies, but there is no obligation on him to do so. Given that the legal professions are, to a large extent, unaffected by the rules in respect of registered persons, I do not understand why he should be specifically obliged to consult them. In due course, I shall invite the Committee not to accept this amendment, if it is moved.
  Amendment No. 128C requires the commissioner to consult the designated judges, the Lord President of the Court of Session and the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland before issuing or altering the code of standards.
  There is already a requirement on the commissioner to consult the designated professional bodies, as I indicated earlier. We consider that it is useful and necessary for the commissioner to consult the designated judges and the Lord President in this regard. "Designated judge" is defined in Amendment No. 124A and has the same meaning as in Section 119(1) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. This includes the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, the Vice-Chancellor and the President of the Family Division. I shall in due time commend to the Committee both of these amendments.
  Amendment No. 131A requires the Secretary of State to consult the commissioner before making an order to extend the code of standards to a designated professional body. It also requires the Secretary of State to consult the Legal Services Ombudsman, or her territorial equivalents, prior to making an order. Amendment No. 129A is consequential to Amendment No. 131A.
  Amendment No. 131B has been tabled to require the Lord Chancellor to consult the designated judges or the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland and to require
  1006
  the Scottish Ministers to consult the Lord President of the Court of Session before approving an order to extend the scope of the code of standards to a designated professional body. We think that it is right that those persons should be consulted.
  Amendment No. 132 requires the immigration services commissioner to consult each of the designated professional bodies and such other persons appearing to him to represent the views of persons engaged in the provision of immigration advice or services as he considers appropriate before establishing a complaints scheme. If a scheme is to work effectively, the commissioner will have to work closely with the disciplinary bodies of the designated professional bodies to develop such a scheme. Officials from the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department have met representatives of the legal professions on a number of occasions to discuss how a complaints scheme might operate. One possibility which has been discussed is the drafting of a memorandum of understanding between the commissioner and the professions. We are happy to accept this amendment.
  Amendment No. 144A requires the Secretary of State to consult the Legal Services Ombudsman for England and Wales, or the territorial equivalents where he is proposing to make an order to remove a body from the list of designated professional bodies. The Legal Services Ombudsman, or equivalents in the territories, has a duty to oversee and report on the legal professions. In view of the role of the ombudsman, it is only right that the Secretary of State should consult her prior to making an order to remove a body from the list. I ask the Committee to accept this amendment.
  Amendment No. 145A requires the Lord Chancellor to consult the designated judges or the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland before giving his approval to the Secretary of State to make an order removing a body from the list of designated professional bodies. It requires the Scottish Ministers to consult appropriately. We have been asked by the legal professions to include this amendment. It is right and appropriate that we should do so. In due time, I shall invite the Committee to agree the amendment.
  Amendment No. 145 requires the Secretary of State to have the approval of the Legal Services Consultative Panel and the designated judges prior to making an order of removal. The Secretary of State is required to have the approval of the Lord Chancellor before making an order, or of Scottish Ministers. Government Amendment No. 145A requires the Lord Chancellor to consult the designated judges prior to approving an order of removal.
  There is nothing to prevent or preclude the Lord Chancellor consulting the Legal Services Consultative Panel. However, I am happy to take this idea away and to consider whether this should be placed on the face of the Bill. For the moment, therefore, I ask that the amendment is not pressed. Obviously, I shall consider it with an open mind.
  Amendment No. 149A requires the Lord Chancellor to consult the Scottish Ministers before making or altering the rules of procedure for the immigration

  1007
  services tribunal. It is right that the Scottish Ministers should be consulted in this regard. This corresponds to the other amendments which have been tabled in respect of consultation. In due time, I shall invite the Committee to agree the amendment.
  Amendment No. 149 would require the Lord Chancellor to consult the Lord President of the Court of Session about making rules as to the procedure and practice to be followed by the immigration services tribunal. In fact, it is appropriate for the Lord Chancellor to consult the Scottish Ministers, not the Lord President of the Court of Session. That is the subject of the previous government amendment to which I spoke, Amendment No. 149A. Bearing in mind that Amendment No. 149A is now in this group of amendments, I shall ask the noble Lord not to move his amendment because we have dealt with the matter appropriately.
  I am sorry to have taken the Committee through the amendments in a little detail. However, they are matters of importance because they relate to appropriate consultations. I hope that Members of the Committee will think that we have got the right balance and that we have paid proper attention to the representations made. I beg to move.
  5.15 p.m.
  Viscount Astor: I am not clear why we are looking at the list in a different order from the Minister. Will the Minister go back a page and consider what he said in relation to Amendment No. 132? I can then deal with the other amendments standing in my name.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I shall do that at this stage. I said that we would accept Amendment No. 132, and were considering the possibility of a memorandum of understanding. I am quite happy to accept Amendment No. 132.
  Viscount Astor: I am very grateful. I was so surprised to have an amendment accepted; I just wanted to check that I was right.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: Perhaps the noble Viscount should sit down now.
  Viscount Astor: I did not want to thank the noble Lord for accepting an amendment and then find that I had made a terrible blunder.
  Perhaps I may now deal with my amendments. I am entirely happy not to move Amendment No. 126 because I think that Amendment No. 125A covers its point. As to Amendment No. 128, I am satisfied by the Minister's answer. Again, I am grateful for his acceptance of Amendment No. 132. I am extremely grateful for his offer to consider the issues raised by Amendment No. 145, which stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. No doubt he will wish to say something in a moment.
  I am concerned about Amendment No. 149. Perhaps the Minister will consider one point. I should say at the outset that I am no expert on the Scottish system of law
  1008
  and that my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Drumadoon is not in his place. I am afraid that I am rather inadequately filling in for him.
  If the rules and practice are to operate efficiently in the Scottish system, it would seem sensible for the Lord Chancellor to be able to take advice from the Lord President of the Court of Session. The Minister might say that in the normal circumstances the Lord Chancellor would do so; I am not clear about the interaction between the Lord Chancellor and the Lord President of the Court of Session. If the noble Lord cannot respond now, I should be happy for him to write to me.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: Perhaps I may attempt to be helpful. The only difference between us on Amendments Nos. 149 and 149A is that Amendment No. 149A requires the Lord Chancellor to consult the Scottish Ministers, including those whom I mentioned earlier. Thereafter, it is for the Scottish Ministers to decide whom to consult. If they wish to consult the Lord President of the Court of Session, they would be able to do so. We are simply saying that, constitutionally, it is appropriate for the Lord Chancellor to consult Scottish Ministers about what will be procedure and practice within the Scottish jurisdiction.
  Lord Dholakia: Perhaps I may intervene as my name is attached to one of the amendments. The Minister seems to have recovered from his flu and he is fairly generous today. I do not want to pursue any further points. I am delighted with his explanation and his acceptance of some of the suggestions that have been made.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 72, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 73 [The Commissioner]:
  Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 125:
  Page 47, line 24, leave out ("the Secretary of State after consulting").
  The noble Viscount said: This is again a probing amendment. Clause 73(2) states that,
  "The Commissioner is to be appointed by the Secretary of State after consulting the Lord Chancellor".
  The words which the amendment seeks to delete seem unnecessary. If the Lord Chancellor wants to consult whomsoever he wants to consult, he will no doubt do so. Obviously, the Secretary of State has an interest, but it is one of which the Lord Chancellor would be bound to take account in any event. I shall be interested to hear the noble Lord's reply. I beg to move.
  Lord Dholakia: My noble friend Lady Williams has her name to the amendment. I referred to the Minister's generosity. Perhaps I may now press him further.
  There is nothing new in what is sought in the amendment. As early as 1987, the rule-making powers in relation to the immigration appeals process, including in respect of the judicial leadership of the Immigration Appeals Tribunal, were transferred from the Home

  1009
  Office to the Lord Chancellor. The principle proposed in the amendment is therefore consistent with that approach.
  The principle is simple. The amendment is intended to ensure the independence of the immigration services commissioner. It would avoid the question of the Secretary of State having the power to appoint the commissioner, who effectively controls the "opponents" of the Home office in immigration arid asylum cases. The Lord Chancellor already appoints immigration adjudicators.
  The Bill provides that the commissioner should be appointed by the Secretary of State. That breaches the principle of natural justice. The amendment is intended to ensure the independence of the immigration services commissioner as the proposed regulator. The advisers and representatives whom the commissioner will regulate will be in an adversarial relationship with the Secretary of State. As I said, it would be inappropriate for the Secretary of State to have the power to appoint the commissioner, who will effectively control the "opponents" of the Home Office in asylum and immigration cases. He will have too close an interest in the outcome of cases on which the advisers may be assisting. The Bill proposes a quasi-judicial function for the immigration services commissioner. The commissioner should therefore be appointed by the Lord Chancellor.
  If the amendment is made, a number of consequential amendments will be necessary, including amendments relating to the various administrative provisions concerning the commissioner, his status, remuneration and staff under Schedule 5. Those administrative provisions should also be independent of the Secretary of State for the reasons that I have cited. Amendment No. 144 deals with the same aspect and will give rise to consequential amendments.
  Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Is it really necessary to stipulate in a statute that one Minister should consult another? Does not the ordinary machinery of government take care of that? I know that the Treasury is deeply wedded to reiterating in statute after statute that nothing must be done without consulting the Treasury. That is bad enough. It is all quite unnecessary. But need we go beyond that, having allowed for Treasury paranoia?
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: This is one occasion when no Treasury paranoia can be pointed to, because the Treasury is not concerned in this aspect at all. What we have done—rightly, I believe—is to provide, in Clause 73(2), for the commissioner to be appointed by the Secretary of State after consultation with the Lord Chancellor. That is a perfectly sensible way of proceeding. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, will say that that is excessively cautious. However, in a sense we are in new territory here, and it is wise to place upon the Secretary of State for the Home Department the duty of consulting the Lord Chancellor.
  I turn to the burden of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. We must bear in mind that the role of the commissioner is wholly administrative. He has no
  1010
  judicial function; therefore, it does not fall for the appointment to be made by the Lord Chancellor. I agree that members of the immigration services tribunal will exercise a judicial function, and for that specific reason their appointment will fall within the remit of the Lord Chancellor. That is why we make provision for it.
  The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, raised the important point of independence. That is why I invite the Committee's attention to paragraph 11 of Schedule 5. The safeguards are built into the paragraph. There is a defined term of office; namely, five years, subject to resignation; and there are severe limitations on the Secretary of State as regards dismissal. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, was right to raise this issue. I am happy to give that reassurance, with specific reference to paragraph 11 of Schedule 5.
  Amendment No. 144 deals with a different theme. It gives a power to the Lord Chancellor to make an order to remove a designated professional body from the list of designated professional bodies in the clause. The power is with the Secretary of State. He has the responsibility for the scheme to regulate advisers. It seems to me only sensible, in terms of coherent administration if nothing else, that he should have the responsibility for making the order for removal.
  However, I must underline the fact that, before an order is sought, the Secretary of State must consult the commissioner; he must notify the body concerned of the proposal, and must give a reasonable period within which representations may be made; and he must consider those representations. He must also have the approval of the Lord Chancellor or the Scottish Ministers if the order relates to a designated professional body in Scotland.
  Although I understand the motives behind the amendments, they should not be pressed. I invite the Committee not to agree to them if they are.
  Lord Dholakia: I have followed what the Minister has said. The situation needs to be carefully monitored over a period of time.
  Viscount Astor: I found the Minister's answer convincing. It convinced me that I had got the amendment wrong. However, it also convinced me that an amendment was necessary. I understood him to say that the commissioner did not have a judicial function. Therefore, it seemed to me that instead of taking out,
  "the Secretary of State after consulting",
  the phrase should read,
  "by the Secretary of State".
  Then we would take out,
  "after consulting the Lord Chancellor".
  It seems to me that that is unnecessary and I am grateful to the Minister for giving me guidance as to what amendment to put forward at the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw this one.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 125A:
  Page 47, line 25, at end insert ("and the Scottish Ministers").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 126 not moved.]
  5.30 p.m.
  Lord Dholakia Lord Dholakia moved Amendment No. 127:
  Page 47, line 27, at end insert ("and, in particular, to ensure that only those who are trained to do so provide such advice or services in respect of children").
  The noble Lord said: This amendment is very much a probing exercise at this stage. The Minister will not be surprised that a number of children's organisations have a vested interest in what is being proposed. The purpose of the probing amendment is to obtain information about how the Government envisage the requisite expertise, skill and sensitivity to deal with asylum-seeking children.
  We welcome the move to regulate immigration advisers and service providers designed to improve the quality of legal representation for asylum seekers. However, we are concerned that legal representatives must be suitably trained in representing children. This opportunity is taken to do so.
  There are a number of organisations which firmly believe that child asylum applicants require specialist legal advice and legal services such as they already receive in other areas of law. For example, members of the Law Society's Children's Panel act for children in proceedings under the Children Act 1989.
  The issues of concern are not only on the representation of children but also the importance of developing child-sensitive legal representations whenever required. It is also a matter where we need to communicate with child clients. Children may express themselves differently from adults and have greater difficulty in expressing wishes and needs. How will those factors be taken into account? Children's sense of time can be different from adults' and waiting to hear about a decision can be disturbing to them. They need regular reassurances about their claim.
  Child-specific requirements for legal representation mean knowledge of special rules, procedures and policies that apply to unaccompanied children, knowledge of child-specific forms of persecution, knowledge of the Children Act 1989 and skills in communicating with and interviewing children and young people.
  It is not the intention of the amendment to restrict the number of advisers who can represent children. It is only to ensure that those who are the most vulnerable within the system receive the best possible advice, for which people are appropriately trained. I beg to move.
  Viscount Astor: We support the amendment in so far as it will enable the Minister to explain how the Government envisage that the expertise, skill and sensitivity to deal with asylum-seeking children will
  1012
  be assured in all the aspects of the provision of the immigration advice services. We look forward to the Minister's explanation.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: These are important questions and I shall spend a moment developing and explaining our thinking on this. I entirely appreciate the thinking behind Amendments Nos. 127 and 142.
  One of the main objectives of the regulatory scheme which the Committee has generally approved in concept is to ensure that we provide or have provided competent immigration advice. The matters raised by noble Lords are matters which the immigration services commissioner will wish to consider, including in the code of standards and rules. That is the proper place for them, rather than on the face of the Bill.
  We are conscious of the particular needs of children referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. He knows that we in the Home Office fund a scheme under which the Refugee Council provides representatives to act on behalf of unaccompanied children. So there is a substantial body of expertise that we are keen to use.
  Finally, on the general point put by both noble Lords who spoke, I return to Clause 73(5). There is the very important obligation in the present context under that subsection that,
  "The commissioner must exercise his functions so as to secure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that those who provide immigration advice or immigration services"—
  then we reach the two critical matters in the context of children—
  "are fit and competent to do so".
  I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said: children have different requirements whenever one represents them. Secondly, those who provide services must,
  "act in the best interests of their clients".
  That is extremely important and it is the basis on which we approach matters. I reiterate that I am sure that the immigration services commissioner will want to consider those matters for inclusion in the code of standards and rules.
  Lord Dholakia: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 73, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedule 4 agreed to.
  Schedule 5 [The Immigration Services Commissioner]:
  [Amendment No. 128 not moved.]
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 128A:
  Page 114, line 43, at end insert—
  (" .—(1) The Commissioner's rules must be made or altered by an instrument in writing.
  (2) Such an instrument must specify that it is made under this Schedule.
  (3) Immediately after such an instrument is made, it must be printed and made available to the public.
  (4) The Commissioner may charge a reasonable fee for providing a person with a copy of the instrument.
  (5) A person is not to be taken to have contravened a rule made by the Commissioner if he shows that at the time of the alleged contravention the instrument containing the rule had not been made available in accordance with this paragraph.
  (6) The production of a printed copy of an instrument purporting to be made by the Commissioner on which is endorsed a certificate signed by an officer of the Commissioner authorised by him for that purpose and stating—

  (a) that the instrument was made by the Commissioner,

  (b) that the copy is a true copy of the instrument, and

  (c) that on a specified date the instrument was made available to the public in accordance with this paragraph,

  is evidence (or in Scotland sufficient evidence) of the facts stated in the certificate.
  (7) A certificate purporting to be signed as mentioned in sub-paragraph (6) is to be treated as having been properly signed unless the contrary is shown.
  (8) A person who wishes in any legal proceedings to rely on an instrument containing the Commissioner's rules may require him to endorse a copy of the instrument with a certificate of the kind mentioned in sub-paragraph (6).").
  The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 128A, 203B and 203C are in the next grouping. Amendments Nos. 203B and 203C are tabled to clarify that the immigration rules and the commissioner's rules are not subject to the provisions of Clause 154. They are not to be made by statutory instrument.
  Amendment No. 128A makes further provision for the commissioner's rules. It stipulates that the rules must be made or altered by an instrument in writing and that they must stipulate that they are made under Schedule 5. They must be printed and made available to the public subject to a reasonable fee.
  The amendment also provides for a person not to be taken to have contravened a rule made by the commissioner if it is shown that at the time of the alleged contravention the instrument containing the rule had not been made available. It provides for a printed copy of the instrument certified by an officer of the commissioner to be taken in evidence that the instrument had been duly issued.
  This amendment therefore places essential requirements on the commissioner with regard, first, to the promulgation of the rules and, secondly, that those who are registered will he aware of the rules. I beg to move.
  Lord Avebury: Could not these rules be placed on the Internet like so many other documents nowadays? That means they would be readily available to anyone who has the necessary Web address. It could be held to constitute publication.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: What the noble Lord said has a good deal of validity. We have been much more open-minded in the Home Office to the noble Lord's more recent request about the provision of material in that way. I shall give it careful thought and write to him. We are looking for the bare minimum that anyone likely to be affected by
  1014
  something is entitled to have it in writing available to the public at a reasonable fee. I do not dissent from the noble Lord's general approach.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 128B:
  Page 115, line 7, leave out from ("services") to end of line 9 and insert ("other than—

  (a) a person who is authorised by a designated professional body to practise as a member of the profession whose members are regulated by that body;

  (b) a person who works under the supervision of such a person; or

  (c) a person mentioned in section 74(6).").

  The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
  Viscount Astor: Included on the Marshalled List with Amendment No. 128B are Amendments Nos. 129, 130, 130A and 131. I believe the Minister and I have the same groupings. I do not know whether he would like to speak to Amendment No. 128B before we start.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am happy to do that and I am grateful for the suggestion. The noble Viscount is quite right that Amendments Nos. 128B, 129, 130, 130A and 131 are all in this group.
  Amendment No. 128B clarifies who is not caught by the commissioner's code of standards. They are persons authorised to practise by a designated professional body, those working under the supervision of such a person and those mentioned in Clause 74(6).
  Amendment No. 130A is a drafting amendment tabled to ensure consistency with the language of Section 74(2)(c). Amendment No. 129 would remove the provision for the extension of the commissioner's code of standards in part or whole to designated professional bodies. It is intended that the provision would be used if a professional body was failing to regulate its members effectively in the provision of immigration advice or services. It is a useful interim measure. If the provision was removed, the first option would be for the commissioner to seek the removal of a body from the list of designated bodies and require every member of the body offering immigration advice to register individually. That would work to the disadvantage of the professional body, because it would not be given what most people would regard as a fair opportunity to improve its regulation following the application of the code of standards to it. I ask the noble Viscount not to press it for that reason. It offers the "nuclear option" as the only alternative.
  Where the commissioner's code of standards is extended to a designated professional body, Amendment No. 130 would require the body to take account of the code rather than requiring its members to comply with the code. It is intended that the provision could he used if a professional body is failing to regulate its members effectively. In the event of such a failure, it would be inappropriate and ineffective to require a professional body to take account of the code of standards rather than expecting its members to comply with it fully.

  1015
  Amendment No. 131 is consequential on Amendment No. 130. For the reasons that I have given, I ask the noble Viscount not to press them.
  Viscount Astor: I understand the Minister's argument. Perhaps a brief explanation would help. I realise that the amendment is flawed because it goes wider than was intended. It arose from the concerns expressed by the Law Society of Scotland, which already has its own code of conduct and code of practice to cover solicitors practising in that area of the law. It felt that another code was not necessary. I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. We shall consider it carefully. I shall not be moving any of the three amendments in my name.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 128C:
  Page 115, line 14, after ("bodies;") insert—

  ("() the designated judges;

  () the Lord President of the Court of Session;

  () the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland;").

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Simon): Before calling Amendment No. 129, I advise the Committee that if it is agreed to. I cannot call Amendments Nos. 129A to 131B inclusive due to pre-emption.
  [Amendment No. 129 not moved.]
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 129A:
  Page 115, line 21, leave out (", after consulting the Commissioner,").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 130 not moved.]
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 130A:
  Page 115, line 24, leave out from ("to") to ("and") in line 25 and insert ("practise as a member of the profession whose members are regulated by that body;").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 131 not moved.]
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 131A:
  Page 115, line 26, at end insert—
  ("() If the Secretary of State is proposing to act under sub-paragraph (11 he must, before doing so, consult—

  (a) the Commissioner;

  (b) the Legal Services Ombudsman, if the proposed order would affect a designated professional body in England and Wales;

  (c) the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman, if the proposed order would affect a designated professional body in Scotland:

  1016

  (d) the lay observers appointed under Article 42 of the Solicitors (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, if the proposed order would affect a designated professional body in Northern Ireland.").

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 131B:
  Page 115, line 31, at end insert—
  ("() Before deciding whether or not to give his approval under sub-paragraph (2)(a), the Lord Chancellor must consult—

  (a) the designated judges, if the order affects a designated professional body in England and Wales:

  (b) the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, if it affects a designated professional body in Northern Ireland.

  () Before deciding whether or not to give their approval under sub-paragraph (2)(b), the Scottish Ministers must consult the Lord President of the Court of Session.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Amendment No. 132: Viscount Astor?
  Viscount Astor: Not moved.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Amendment No. 133: Viscount Astor?
  Viscount Astor: Paragraph 4 of Amendment No. 133 gives the commissioner the power to investigate complaints on a number of matters. Sub-paragraph (2)(c) refers to an alleged breach of the code. This clarifying amendment matches the corresponding provision in sub-paragraph (2)(d) in relation to a complaint that the commissioner's rules have been breached. It could not have been intended that any persons not subject to the code—
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: We have been moving with some rapidity. I think that the noble Viscount wanted to move Amendment No. 132, because, to his surprise and justified delight, I had agreed to it. We have skipped over that too quickly.
  Viscount Astor: I am very grateful to the Minister. Having been offered an amendment, I seem to have missed it. I am delighted to move Amendment No. 132 formally.
  Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 132:
  Page 115, line 35, at end insert—
  ("(1A) Before establishing the scheme or altering it, the Commissioner must consult—

  (a) each of the designated professional bodies; and

  (b) such other persons appearing to him to represent the views of persons engaged in the provision of immigration advice or immigration services as he considers appropriate.").

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  5.45 p.m.
  Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 133:
  Page 115, line 42, at end insert ("by a person to whom the Code applies").
  The noble Viscount said: I apologise for jumping the gun and nearly ruining my modest success.
  Paragraph 4(2)(c) refers to an alleged breach of the code. This clarifying amendment matches the corresponding provision in sub-paragraph (2)(d) in relation to a complaint that the commissioner's rules have been breached. It could not have been intended that any persons not subject to the code should be investigated on the basis of an alleged breach of it.
  Under Amendment No. 134, the immigration services commissioner would have the power to refer any alleged breach by a member of a designated professional body of that body's rules to the relevant professional body. The Office for the Supervision of Solicitors will be given additional powers of investigation under the Access to Justice Bill. The aim of the amendment is to avoid the unnecessary conduct of two investigations on the same alleged breach.
  Amendment No. 135 is designed to ensure the referral of complaints about members of professional bodies to their relevant professional body for investigation. The aim is to ensure that all complaints relating to members of one body are conducted by the same body and to avoid members being subject to the unnecessary conduct of two investigations by their professional body and the immigration services commissioner.
  The aim of Amendment No. 137 is to ensure that the exercise of the powers to set targets is consistent with that conferred on any legal services complaints commissioner under the Access to Justice Bill. There is also a requirement for consultation on the approach to the drawing-up of directions setting a timetable to be followed by a designated professional body. A reasonable timetable should be based on the principle that matters should be handled with all due despatch.
  Amendment No. 143 is intended to ensure consistency with the powers conferred on the Lord Chancellor and any legal service complaints commissioner appointed by him under the Access to Justice Bill. I beg to move.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: This is an intricate group of amendments. Amendment No. 133 stipulates that a complaint is relevant if it alleges a breach of the code of standards by a person to whom the code applies. Paragraph 2(3) of Schedule 5 already makes it clear to whom the code of standards is intended to apply, so the amendment is not necessary.
  Amendment No. 134 is a little different. It would remove an alleged breach by a member of a designated professional body of one or more of the rules of that body from the definition of a relevant complaint. It would provide for the commissioner to bring to the attention of the designated body any complaints relating to the competence or fitness of someone working under supervision or employment. I believe that we have been unanimous in our discussions on these matters. We must control the behaviour of unscrupulous immigration advisers.
  1018
  The Government feel—and I believe that the Committee has agreed—that the best way to achieve this is to have a statutory regulatory scheme. It is unfortunately true that some extremely bad examples of unscrupulous behaviour have been perpetrated by members of the legal profession. In those circumstances I believe it is entirely wrong that a complaint made against a member of one of the designated professional bodies would not, were this amendment to succeed, be regarded as a complaint to be investigated by the commissioner. I have to say that I quite fundamentally part company with the noble Viscount on that point.
  In respect of complaints about breaches of the rules of the regulatory body of a designated profession, it is intended that the commissioner should pass such complaints to the relevant regulatory body once he has conducted an investigation himself. Paragraph 8(1)(c) of Schedule 5 enables the commissioner to determine complaints against members of the designated professions and then refer the complaint and his decision to the relevant regulatory body. The amendment runs contrary to the spirit of a regulatory scheme.
  I shall give the Committee an example. If, for instance, a solicitor or a member of the Bar has behaved in a quite disgraceful professional way and he is subject to the sanction of the commissioner in the immigration context, in some circumstances it may well still be entirely appropriate that his own professional body should consider whether to impose different sanctions if the unprofessional behaviour is proved.
  Amendment No. 135 provides for the commissioner to bring to the attention of a designated professional body complaints made against a member of that body which relate to the competence or fitness of a person, or of those working under his supervision or employment, to provide immigration advice or services or a breach of one or more of the relevant rules. The commissioner already has a similar power under paragraph 8(1)(c) of Schedule 5. He may determine a complaint and refer the complaint in his decision to the relevant regulatory body. It is important that the commissioner should be able to form a preliminary view on the complaint before referring it. He is an independent regulatory authority and can add value to the process.
  The Bill contains a provision already allowing the commissioner to give directions setting a timetable to be followed by a designated professional body in considering a complaint referred to it by the commissioner. If accepted, although I ask the Committee not to accept it, Amendment 136 would limit the commissioner to requiring a body to provide an explanation where a complaint is made to him about the time taken by the body to deal with the complaint and to give him a timetable within which the complaint will be dealt with. If the body then failed to adhere to the suggested timetable, the amendment would allow the commissioner to set a timetable.
  Again, there is a difference in our approach. W e believe that it is only right that all professional bodies should deal with complaints in a reasonable time. It is true to say that

  1019
  the record in terms of timeliness when dealing with some complaints against some members of the legal profession has not been a happy one. Very often the delay causes such grievance that, even if the complaint is upheld, members of the public rightly feel that their complaints have not been given decent, focused attention. It is perfectly reasonable to give the commissioner the power to set a time-scale for the conduct of an inquiry into complaints against members of the legal professions.
  The purpose of the scheme is to make it as certain as possible that people receive quality immigration advice, are not overcharged for it and that complaints are effectively investigated within a reasonable time-scale. A reasonable time-scale introduces structure and discipline and is itself important in maintaining standards. The amendment would have the effect, in the case of some complaints, of lengthening the time-scale for effective resolution.
  Amendments Nos. 143 and 137 would mean that the commissioner could not set a timetable unless the Lord Chancellor had first made a direction. Amendment No. 137 also provides for the bodies to make representations to the commissioner before targets are set. They should not need that. As an article of faith, all professional bodies ought to be able and willing to deal with the idea that complaints should be dealt with in a reasonable time. The amendments give further powers to organisations sometimes wrongly described, I am sure, as "conspiracies against the laity". However, they do not need any more powers.
  Lord Avebury: What will happen if a person makes a complaint simultaneously to the commissioner and to a professional organisation? Would the two investigations proceed in parallel; for example, an investigation by the commissioner and one by the Law Society? How would priority be given to one rather than the other?
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: No priority would have to be given. However, I can envisage circumstances where the Law Society or the Bar Council professional conduct committee might reasonably say that they will wait to see what the commissioner has to say. That, I believe, provides the added value I referred to. It is more a case of looking at the individual circumstances but avoiding delay at all costs.
  Viscount Astor: The amendments to which I spoke arose from concerns expressed to us by the Law Society of England and Wales and indeed the Law Society of Scotland. Far be it from me to accuse the Minister of being a poacher turned gamekeeper. However, I am convinced by his arguments, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 134 to 137 not moved.]
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 138:
  Page 119, line 15, leave out sub-paragraph (3).
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 139:
  Page 119, line 21, leave out (", with the approval of the Treasury,").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 140:
  Page 121, line 10, at end insert—
  ("Disqualification for Scottish Parliament
  23A. After section 15(1)(d) of the Scotland Act 1998 insert—

  "(e) he is the Immigration Services Commissioner or the Deputy Immigration Services Commissioner."

  Disqualification for National Assembly for Wales
  23B. After section 12(1)(d) of the Government of Wales Act 1998 insert—

  "(e) he is the Immigration Services Commissioner or the Deputy Immigration Services Commissioner."").

  The noble Viscount said: This amendment is needed to fill a lacuna in the drafting of the Bill. As it stands, the immigration services commissioner and the deputy immigration services commissioner would be disqualified from membership of the House of Commons and the Northern Ireland Assembly. However, there is no provision for disqualification from the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly. I beg to move.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I understand the apparent gap. However, the reason for it is that should the Parliament in Scotland and/or the Assembly in Wales wish to disqualify, that would be a matter for them as part of their internal regimes to bring about the disqualification. That is a necessary part of the post-devolution settlement.
  Viscount Astor: The Minister has made the position clear. However, the Bill covers asylum and immigration matters for the whole country. I wonder whether the Government would find it uncomfortable if the commissioner were a member of the Scottish Parliament. I shall ponder the Minister's reply, and in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 74 [Provision of immigration services]:
  [Amendment No. 141 not moved.]
  On Question, Whether Clause 74 shall stand part of the Bill?
  The Earl of Harrowby: My Lords, I should like to address the Minister on two points. First, I join with the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, in saying how delighted I am, as I am sure is the whole Committee, to see the Minister back on true form.
  Secondly, the clause deals with prohibitions on giving advice. I trust that the Minister is aware, given his many years of experience with the Financial Services Act, that

  1021
  the lessons of the pitfalls in that Act must by now have come to light. They should be borne in mind when drafting the provision.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am happy to give a positive and affirmative response to both of the points raised by the noble Earl, and I am happy to accept his gracious remarks.
  There are lessons to be learnt about regulation, and one would be a fool not to keep one's mind constantly open to lessons which could have been learnt in earlier years.
  Clause 74 agreed to.
  Clause 75 agreed to.
  6 p.m.
  Schedule 6 [Registration]:
  Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No 142:
  Page 121, line 21, at end insert ("which, in the case of applicants proposing to provide advice or services to persons under the age of 18, shall include evidence of appropriate training and experience").
  The noble Baroness said: Further to the kind remarks of my noble friend Lord Dholakia and those just made, I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, informs the Committee how a person can recover from 'flu within 24 hours. That would be helpful to us all.
  It may be that Amendment No. 142 is more appropriately related to paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 6 which makes plain that,
  "the Commissioner may require the applicant to provide him with such further information … as [he] may reasonably require".
  Amendment No. 142 is related to those who give advice to children. We have already discussed children a great deal in Committee and recognised that the expertise of a person who deals with minors is rather different from that of a representative who provides advice to adults. In particular, we are concerned that the advice or service given to such young people should be given by individuals who have some training in the whole area of advising and consulting youngsters. It may be that the Minister will respond by saying that that is a matter which the commissioner can take into account.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: If the noble Baroness is now speaking to Amendment No. 142, I believe that she may have been absent when the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and I had an extensive discussion on Amendments Nos. 127 and 142 which are in the same grouping. I tried to be as helpful as possible to the noble Lord. If the noble Baroness is dissatisfied with what I said—I do not believe that she will be—I am more than happy to discuss it with her.
  [Amendment No. 142 not moved.]
  Schedule 6 agreed to.
  Clause 76 [Designated professional bodies]:
  [Amendments Nos. 143 and 144 not moved.]
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 144A:
  Page 49, line 27, at end insert—
  1022
  ("() consult the Legal Services Ombudsman, if the proposed order would affect a designated professional body in England and Wales;
  () consult the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman, if the proposed order would affect a designated professional body in Scotland;
  () consult the lay observers appointed under Article 42 of the Solicitors (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, if the proposed order would affect a designated professional body in Northern Ireland;").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 145 not moved.]
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 145A:
  Page 49, line 35, at end insert—
  ("() Before deciding whether or not to give his approval under subsection (5)(a), the Lord Chancellor must consult—

  (a) the designated judges, if the order affects a designated professional body in England and Wales;

  (b) the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, if it affects a designated professional body in Northern Ireland.

  () Before deciding whether or not to give their approval under subsection (5)(b), the Scottish Ministers must consult the Lord President of the Court of Session.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I must inform the Committee that if Amendment No. 146 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 147 or 148 due to pre-emption.
  Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 146:
  Page 50, line 8, leave out subsections (8) to (10).
  The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 146 I should like to speak also to subsequent amendments. Amendment No. 146 removes the power of the commissioner to levy a fee against a designated professional body and to recover that fee as a debt due. This is a Scottish concern. It is not apparent why such fees should be payable in Scotland, especially as Scottish solicitors already pay subscriptions to maintain, inter alia, the disciplinary system. I am informed that the annual subscription paid by each solicitor is £375. That maintains the Law Society of Scotland and its consumer protections, such as the Guarantee Fund, the Master Policy and the system of complaints adjudication.
  Amendment No. 147 is designed to ensure that the annual fee payable by a designated body is based on the costs incurred by the commissioner in relation to that body's members. When the Bill passed through another place the Government did not explain their thinking on how a self-financing scheme could be effected. We seek an undertaking that the annual fee relates only to the actual and reasonable costs of the commissioner's activities in relation to the members of a designated body.
  Amendment No. 148 is intended to ensure that the Government's indication to the professional bodies that no charges will be made to the legal professions in the first year will be recorded on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: All members of the Law Society or Bar Council in the jurisdictions of England and Wales are required to provide an annual subscription. Part of that subscription is used in internal disciplinary complaints procedures. I do not believe that the Law Society of Scotland is in any different position. However, I can be helpful to the noble Viscount to the extent that we have written to the professional bodies to inform them that they will not be required to pay a fee in year one of the scheme. In year two they may be required to pay a fee. I am happy to confirm that any fee will be based on an estimate of the likely regulatory activity carried out by the commissioner in year two in respect of each body.
  The noble Viscount wanted me to say—I do so—that each professional body would not cross-subsidise the regulatory activity of the commissioner in respect of any other professional body or those registered or exempted from the scheme. It is only right that each body should be expected to pay a fee for any regulatory activity that is carried out by the commissioner on behalf of that body. Amendment No. 147 is not, strictly speaking, needed. The commissioner may not charge the legal professions for services which he does not provide in respect of them under the terms of the scheme.
  I hope that I have dealt with the concerns raised by the noble Viscount, not least specifically those relating to Amendment No. 148. We have been able to write to the professions concerned and inform them that they will not be charged financially in year one.
  Viscount Astor: I am grateful for the Minister's response to Amendment No. 148. No doubt his reply to Amendment No. 147 will be closely studied north of the Border. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments No. 147 and 148 not moved.]
  Clause 76, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 77 agreed to.
  Schedule 7 [The Immigration Services Tribunal]:
  [Amendment No. 149 not moved.]
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 149A:
  Page 123, line 38, at end insert—
  ("() Before making or altering any such rules, the Lord Chancellor must consult the Scottish Ministers.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 150:
  Page 124, line 5, after second ("party") insert ("having been given due notice of the hearing").
  The noble Viscount said: Amendment No. 150 provides that there should be clear proof of the fact that all parties to a tribunal have received fair notice of the time, date and place of a hearing before the tribunal can proceed in the absence of any relevant party. The amendment attempts to ensure that protection is afforded to all parties to the proceedings so that an unscrupulous person cannot take advantage of the tribunal system and seek to proceed in the absence of the other party without first showing that due notice has been given to that other party. This is an important point which I am sure the Minister will want to consider carefully. I beg to move.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I understand the purpose of the amendment. The amendment stipulates that appeals should be determined only where a party has failed to appear and that party has been given due notice of the hearing. I am happy to tell the Committee that this point is already covered. The determination of an appeal is allowed only where a party has failed, without reasonable excuse, to comply with any reasonable direction. If one has not been told, self-evidently there is a good case for saying that there is a reasonable excuse for not complying. It is worth ventilating the point, but ultimately I believe that this is a matter for the procedural rules, not the face of the Bill. However, I am happy to give the noble Viscount that reassurance.
  Viscount Astor: I am grateful for the Minister's reassurance and explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 78 agreed to.
  Clause 79 [Disciplinary charge upheld by the Tribunal]:
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 150A:
  Page 51, line 26, leave out ("fine") and insert ("penalty").
  The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 150A is a drafting amendment. On reflection we thought that it should be a penalty which is directed rather than a fine. A penalty is more apt in the context of a disciplinary charge; the term fine is more appropriate for offences.
  Amendment No. 150B enables a direction given by the tribunal to a person who has been found to have charged unreasonable fees for immigration advice or services to repay to the clients concerned a portion of the fees or to pay a penalty to the commissioner; and, if it is a penalty to the commissioner, to be enforced by the clients concerned or the commissioner as if it were an order of a court, or, in Scotland, as if it were an order of the Court of Session. So in the first instance it is almost a conceptual variation; and, secondly, it gives teeth to the scheme which has been generally welcomed. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 150B:
  Page 51, line 27, at end insert—
  ("() A direction given by the Tribunal under subsection (5) (or under subsection (6)) may be enforced by the clients concerned (or by the Commissioner)—

  (a) as if it were an order of a county court; or

  (b) in Scotland, as if it were an order of the Court of Session.").

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 79, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 80 [Orders by disciplinary bodies]:
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Before calling Amendment No. 150C in Clause 80 I remind the Committee that if Amendment No. 150C is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 151 due to pre-emption.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 150C:
  Page 52, line 4, leave out ("by a designated professional body").
  The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 151 and 151 A.
  Amendment No. 150C is linked with Amendment No. 151 A. These amendments are designed to ensure that all regulatory bodies set up for the purpose of heating disciplinary charges against members of a designated professional body, including those set up in statute, are included in the definition of "disciplinary body". That is their purpose and I invite the Committee's assent.
  Amendment No. 151, in the names of the noble, Lord Cope, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, would widen the definition of "disciplinary body" to include those bodies set up under statute. The current definition is a body which appears to the Secretary of State to be established by a designated professional body for the purpose of hearing disciplinary charges against members of the body and specified in an order. Having considered Amendment No. 151, we accept that clarification is needed here. This is the purpose of government Amendment No. 150C, which achieves the same effect but in the technically correct manner. Therefore, the point of Amendment No. 151 having been attained, I invite the noble Lords to withdraw their amendment, and ask the Committee to approve my amendment.
  Viscount Astor: As drafted, the Bill does not provide for disciplinary bodies established by statute, or the professional body itself, such as the Scottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal which is established by Section 50 of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980. I presume that Amendments Nos. 150C and 151A cover that point in the way I sought to do in my amendment. If the Minister confirms that, I shall be happy not to move Amendment No. 151.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: Yes, I do.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 151 not moved.]
  6.15 p.m.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 151 A:
  Page 52, line 6, leave out ("the") and insert ("a designated professional").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 80, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 81 to 83 agreed to.
  Lord Alton of Liverpool Lord Alton of Liverpool moved Amendment No. 152:
  Before Clause 84, insert the following new clause—

  SECRETARY OF STATE TO ENSURE ACTIONS OF OFFICIALS PROMOTE ASYLUM SEEKERS
  (" . It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to make arrangements with a view to ensuring that officials of hi;; department and all other providers of assistance to asylum seekers and their dependants operate the provisions of this Part of this Act and exercise their functions in such a way as shall best promote the welfare of asylum seekers and their dependants, if any, who requite assistance under this Part of this Act.").
  The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I speak also to Amendment No. 153.
  We turn now to Part VI of the Bill and the support to be made available to asylum seekers. Before doing so, it is worth reiterating the concerns that I and many other Members of this Chamber raised at Second Reading about the impracticality, the bureaucratic nature, and undesirability of the voucher system. We expressed anxieties about the inevitable creation of destitution, pitifully meagre levels of support, dispersal of vulnerable families, the forced co-option of church and voluntary organisations as arms of the state with requirements to fulfil tasks which are not and never have been hitherto their responsibility, and the duty that, as legislators, we have towards children who are caught up in these nightmare situations.
  Amendments Nos. 152 and 153 go to the heart of those issues in setting out the duty of the Secretary of State towards asylum seekers. Amendment No. 153 deals with his specific duty towards children.
  At Second Reading, the Minister graciously promised anyone who was a Member of this House or of representative organisations dealing with issues concerning asylum seekers that he would make himself available to discuss their concerns. My noble friend, Lord Sandwich, and I took him at his word, and he kindly made time available to us last week. We were accompanied by the indefatigable Mr Mike Kaye from the Refugee Council who has done so much during the proceedings of the Bill to keep the Committee alerted to the practical effects of many of the clauses we have been discussing.
  Following that meeting, notwithstanding 'flu—his extraordinary power of recovery this week has been commented upon—the Minister found time to reply to some of those questions and to set out his reasons for questioning the desirability of placing a duty in the Bill. He has placed a copy of the full response in your

  1027
  Lordships' House. Perhaps I may be permitted to refer to the second paragraph of that letter. The Minister says:
  "You asked why we had framed the provisions on the support for asylum seekers as a power rather than a duty. We feel that a power gives us rather more flexibility in the manner in which we set up the support arrangements. But this does not in any way lessen our commitment to ensuring that proper support arrangements for asylum seekers are developed. We have made clear commitments on our plans both in parliament and elsewhere. Indeed, it is inconceivable that with all the provisions we are building into this Bill, we would not be planning to establish proper support arrangements. While I understand your concern about the nature of the Government's commitment, I doubt that changing a power into a duty would significantly affect this. What you and others will quite properly want to look at is the way in which the support is delivered and the practical safeguards for asylum seekers within this".
  The argument, therefore, revolves around whether it is desirable to give Ministers and the Home Office the flexibility to which the Minister refers in that response, or whether we should instead place a proper duty on the Minister. That is what Amendment No. 152 seeks to do.
  It is not that anyone doubts the sincerity of this Minister of State, nor indeed the Home Secretary, Mr Jack Straw. But they will not always be in office. It is, therefore, important to place on the face of the Bill more than goodwill and more than just an expectation that because they are benign others in the future may not be malign in their interpretation of the legislation. Therefore duties do count. We place duties on Secretaries of State in other legislation. I know that the Minister is not keen to use legislation as a system of semaphore. Nevertheless, it sends signals that if Ministers do not accept a duty in this regard, it will be assumed that they are trying to avoid their commitments to the most vulnerable in our midst.
  The purpose of Amendment No. 152 is to impose a duty on the Secretary of State to operate the system to the benefit of its recipients. The wording of the amendment derives from the former government's legislation underlying the supplementary benefits legislation which was in force from 1980 until 1988. The aim is to ensure that, notwithstanding the temporary nature of the support on offer and the fluctuating numbers of recipients and other practical difficulties likely to be encountered, those who operate the scheme do not lose sight of the fact that they have been entrusted with the welfare of vulnerable human beings.
  In answer to the amendment that was tabled in the Special Standing Committee in the other place—on its 24th sitting on 18th May, columns 1588 and 1599—the Minister, Mr Mike O'Brien, stated that it was unacceptable because it did not make reference to the interests of the taxpayer and provide for them to be weighed in the balance. I shall return to that point. But when I examined further the Minister's comments, I was concerned by two statements. On the then Clause 76, he said:
  "If we allow things to remain the way they are, all sorts of legal challenges may be mounted under the Children Act…to undermine the way in which the Asylum Support Directorate provides accommodation in particular areas, offers financial support and operates the dispersal policy".
  On the then Clause 99, he said:
  "Everything would be subject to judicial review. The state would have to be far more careful about decisions to offer accommodation and take much greater care in its analysis of circumstances".
  The Committee will understand that comments such as those further make the case for reminding the support directorate, which it is intended will have responsibility for people who have been tortured, for children and for others who have fled persecution, that it has a duty and a responsibility to those people, all of whom are reliant upon it and a substantial proportion of whom will receive recognition as refugees or grants of exceptional leave to remain and hence the opportunity to remain in and contribute to this country.
  The new clause makes reference to provision in Part VI and to the functions of the officials concerned, and thus it recognises that a duty exists within the statutory framework of the obligations on a government department to spend money wisely. Therefore the Minister's earlier comment about getting value for money does not apply. There is always a duty on the Government to obtain value for money, but refugees should not simply be viewed through the prism of expenditure. Treasury interests must be held in tension with our duty to care for the vulnerable.
  The purpose of Amendment No. 153 is to require the Secretary of State to have regard to the standards of the general law in respect of children. The wording of this amendment derives from Section 1 (1) of the Children Act 1989. The onus should surely be on anyone who wishes to assert that the welfare of the children of asylum seekers merits a lower standard of consideration to justify that position. The onus therefore is not on those of us who support this amendment but on the Government to say why the safeguards that have always been in place have been removed. The status of the child should not be inferior because he or she is a refugee.
  The world can be a hard and bitter place for a child. We have only to consider the situation of children in countries such as Colombia or the Philippines to know the truth of that. As I said on Second Reading, a few weeks ago I was privileged to be part of an Anglo-Israel Association visit to Jerusalem. While we were there, we visited Yad Vashem. That memorial contains a special sanctuary to the memory of the 1.5 million Jewish children who died during the Second World War which brings home to one the need in every generation to renew our sense of duty and commitment. Recorded at Yad Vashem is the story of how the British people through the Government of the day turned back a boat carrying children which was fleeing from Vichy France. As a consequence of our actions, the children were eventually deported to Auschwitz. In every generation, we have a duty to safeguard the welfare of children above all other interests.
  In the past 10 years we have seen a fascinating shift in perceptions about rights and duties, not least because of the work of men such as David Selbourne in his excellent book The Principle of Duty. That much-needed shift should also be recognised in the sense of duty and responsibility that governments must have as we try to displace some of the flaccid language of rights.
  Among the groups supporting Amendment No. 153 are some of the most respected organisations that deal with children's issues in this country. The Children's Society states:
  "The Children's Consortium … supports this amendment which would place a duty on the Secretary of State to take the welfare of any child involved in asylum proceedings into active consideration when exercising his powers under Part VI of the Bill. The amendment would do much to assuage many of the Consortium's concerns in relation to part VI of the Bill, as it would ensure that the Asylum Support Directorate was obliged to actively consider and act in the best interests of children at all stages of its proceedings".
  It continues:
  "This amendment would bridge this gap between promoting children's welfare and preserving the integrity of the asylum support system, by ensuring that the Secretary of State has a duty to actively consider and safeguard children's welfare in providing support for families. As such, it would ensure that the Secretary of State has a duty to consider compassionate circumstances when determining support arrangements for children and families".
  The amendment is also supported by the Medical Foundation, which helps the victims of torture. It states:
  "The Medical Foundation considers that this amendment should in no way be regarded as controversial. It echoes the Children Act 1989, and the government has claimed that provision under the Support Directorate will place children in a position no less favourable than they would be under the Children Act".
  If that is so, why can we not incorporate this as a duty in the legislation?
  The Medical Foundation states that in its evidence to the Special Standing Committee it expressed its concern that the impact of the UK reservation to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child—which was criticised by the Committee on the Rights of the Child as apparently incompatible with the convention and which allows us to legislate on immigration without regard to the convention—could be extended to the detriment of asylum-seeking children by the inclusion of welfare matters within the province of the Home Office and of immigration control. The foundation states that it continues to call for the UK to remove the reservation which puts both children and this country's international reputation at risk.
  UNICEF states:
  "The United Kingdom ratified the Convention in 1991, simultaneously entering several reservations including one pertaining to nationality, immigration and asylum. In effect, the reservation has severely limited the operation of the Convention in several areas, with the effect of impeding the three theoretically inalienable guiding principles of the Convention: those of non-discrimination … the primacy of the best interests of the child"—
  a point that the amendment tries to draw out—
  "and the importance of the child's wishes in matters that concern him/her".
  It continues:
  "British law has in these ways had the effect of depriving many children of the fundamental rights set out in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, both directly through discriminatory or inappropriate legislation and indirectly through insufficient provision of protection for vulnerable children in difficult situations".
  The opportunity exists in Amendments Nos. 152 and 153 to put that situation right and I commend them to the committee.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: I have much sympathy especially with Amendment No. 153. The noble Lord,
  1030
  Lord Alton, makes a powerful case and I find it difficult to understand why the issue should not be the paramount consideration in the exercise of the Secretary of State's powers. The case is reinforced by several respectable organisations that deal with the rights of children.
  I am not sure whether the provision in Amendment No. 152 should be a duty or a power. One must ask, what is the difference? I ask my noble friend what are the sanctions for an unreasonable failure to exercise a power on the part of the Secretary of State. Is there a major practical difference between the two consequences? Of course, there is a failure to exercise the duty, but, in practice, would a failure on the part of the Secretary of State to exercise a power amount to something similar? What rights would be conferred on the persons who would be prejudiced by that failure?
  That is the major criterion here. Perhaps in practice we are not talking about two distinct issues. Perhaps the situation will be unnecessarily complex, but it is for my noble friend to answer that point.
  In my view, the position in relation to Amendment No. 153 is different. The compelling arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, deserve careful consideration by the Committee and my noble friend.
  6.30 p.m.
  Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: I shall be brief in my support for Amendment No. 153, which relates to a duty to ensure the welfare of children. I should like to bring a particular instance to the attention of the Committee. When people see Kosovar refugees begging, many become annoyed and say, "They are receiving fair benefits, so why should they be begging?". However, on numerous occasions I have seen such people dragging tiny, barefooted children who can hardly walk. They are in dense traffic, stopping at cars and certainly putting the children at considerable risk. They do so not only for a couple of hours but for the full length of the day. I cannot: imagine that anything less than a duty on the part of those responsible would be acceptable.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: I am grateful for what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes. I, too, should like to turn to the argument advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. Perhaps we may go back into the history of the Home Office. The Minister and those associated with the Home Office will recall that at one time it was responsible for children's officers. They were an impressive part of the Home Office's responsibility at that time.
  As a result of decisions made about the allocation of duties between that department and the Department of Health and Social Services, the children's officers were moved into the DHSS with a serious loss to the Home Office in terms of a balancing professional concern unconnected to services related to law and order. Many of the amendments are rightly concerned with how the asylum support directorate will carry out its duties and obligations, not least because for a generation that department has had no direct experience of running such a directorate. Many of us are concerned that the new directorate will not have the experience or awareness of

  1031
  how to deal with asylum seekers and refugees in the position in which they will find themselves as a result of the legislation.
  Like the noble Lord, Lord Alton, I was concerned about the remarks made by the Secretary of State in another place. He was right and fair to say that the concerns of taxpayers must be borne in mind. It would also be fair to say that a good deal of Part VI is about that. But that is not the whole story. I was particularly concerned with the statement he made in the Special Standing Committee, which examined Clause 99. He stated:
  "If this kind of provision was passed, the state would have to be far more careful about decisions to offer accommodation and take much greater care in its analysis of circumstances".
  I fully accept that phrase; it is a good argument for passing the amendment before us.
  Amendment No. 152 balances the directorate's responsibilities in terms of administration and saving public money with a recognition that it also has a duty towards the welfare of asylum seekers. I understand that a power is enabling and that a duty is an obligation which cannot be left to discretion. It is a duty which must be carried out by the department in all circumstances. That is what we are seeking: that the asylum directorate will balance the welfare of asylum seekers against the other considerations that it takes into account relating to administrative convenience and taxpayers' concerns.
  With regard to Amendment No. 153, I want strongly to underline what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said. In the White Paper, the Government stated that they wanted to ensure that,
  "the needs of children are fully respected and their welfare and rights respected.".
  That is a useful and powerful commitment. Many of us believe that it could properly be borne on the face of the Bill and that is what Amendment No. 153 would do. I hope that the Government will give careful consideration to these two amendments, which set a framework within which the asylum directorate would be working. As a form of guidance, it would be useful to it in its work.
  Finally, I strongly support what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, about the position of children today. One of the problems about our world is that increasingly children are used as weapons of war. The Minister will be familiar with the terrifyingly changed ratio on the loss of life of civilians and of soldiers in today's battles. We now know, for example, that in the Yemen children are regularly seriously mutilated as part of a political purpose.
  In such a situation, we, as a civilised country, must put at the forefront our concern for the next generation. I believe that Amendment No. 153 would be in the best traditions of this country and would stand to the credit of the Government if they accepted it.
  Lord Judd: I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on tabling the amendment. It goes to the kernel of the legislation. In some ways, this is a Second Reading debate.
  1032
  I am not a lawyer and in the detail of the Bill legal minds are most important. However, I chair the refugee sub-committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and I have spent most of my life working in humanitarian agencies. For those of us who are carrying out such tasks, the amendment is highly relevant. Perhaps I may underline why.
  First, the noble Baroness made the point that there is a growing and deep concern among all of us in humanitarian agencies about the effect of conflict and repression on children. It leaves psychological scars for the rest of their lives. There is a need for counselling and psychological support, which do not exist. In that context and in the administration of this part of national policy, we should wholeheartedly fulfil our responsibilities by ensuring that the humanitarian dimensions of what we are trying to do are second to none and that our commitment to children is self-evident.
  As regards Amendment No. 152—and as we discussed a great deal in the Council of Europe sub-committee—we must examine legislation in the context of the culture in which it is being applied. We all know that the number of refugees and asylum seekers with whom governments are grappling is out of all proportion to anything imagined in the immediate post-war period. We also know that there is abuse. There is no argument about that. We also know that there is a responsibility to the taxpayers. There is no argument about that. But we also know that everything that the political leadership of post-war Europe was about was the humanitarian responsibility for refugees and asylum seekers. That is why we introduced human rights provisions and legislation in this area.
  Because of the preoccupations with the other elements to which I have referred, when a Bill such as this is being debated it is very important to reassert the primary commitment to genuine refugees and asylum seekers. We should be sending that message strongly as a message of support to those in the front line who are administering the policy. They should understand that that is what Parliament wants: to see the issue dealt with generously and openly, while the other points are taken into account. My fear, which is shared by my fellow members of that sub-committee of the Council of Europe, is that in one country after another the more negative aspects which I have described are becoming so preoccupying that the primary purpose is overlooked. That is why anything that my good and noble friend the Minister can say tonight to help to strengthen and reassure us all, and to set the tone for what is being done in the name of the Bill, will be tremendously important.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: As the noble Lord has just said, this debate has turned into something of a Second Reading on Part VI of the Bill. I am not complaining about that. It has happened in a general sense. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred to some general points relating to this part of the Bill at the start of his remarks. I shall not follow him into that matter. We have made clear our general position, which is that we want to see genuine asylum seekers properly looked after, particularly the children, but at the same time we recognise the Government's duty to deal with the problem of bogus asylum seekers which is, as the noble Lord said, generally accepted.

  1033
  The only general point which I would make, as I do not believe that it is raised under any of the following amendments, is that I am not persuaded that the 300 proposed staff of the new support directorate will prove anything like sufficient to carry out the duties which the Committee seeks to place on them in this part of the Bill. I shall not develop that point.
  I am sympathetic to the arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and by the others in the debate, particularly on Amendment No. 153. Looking at the next few pages of the Marshalled List, I note that a number of other groups of amendments touch on the same point in specific ways, but it is made in a general way in Amendment No. 153. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, was quite right to say that, were Amendment No. 153 or a similar amendment to be tabled at the start of Part VI of the Bill, there would be far less need for the other, more specific amendments at later stages. I am not very qualified to judge whether the precise wording is correct or could be legally improved. However, I support the sentiment behind inserting a general provision to put the consideration of the child's welfare in the minds of everyone concerned with those matters.
  6.45 p.m.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord, Lord Cope, is right. The debate is in the nature of a Second Reading revisit to Part VI. I have no complaint about that at all. I should like to take slightly more time than is usual at this stage in dealing with the general questions, but shall not then return to the general questions on every specific subsequent amendment, if that is acceptable to the Committee.
  Amendment No. 152 would place on the Secretary of State a duty.
  "to make arrangements … and exercise … functions in such a way as shall best promote the welfare of asylum seekers and their dependants".
  I hope that I am not being harsh in saying that that would give primacy to the welfare of asylum seekers, however that is defined—it is not defined in the amendment, but that is not an essential part of my argument—at the expense of all other considerations, such as cost and competing legitimate aspirations that others who live in this country may well have. I believe that it is important to set the issue in that context.
  I shall cover Amendments Nos. 152 and 153 in rather more detail in a moment. The scope of Amendment No. 153, which has had the general approval of a number of noble Lords who have spoken, is very wide. It states:
  "When any question arises with respect to a child, or with respect to any household which includes a child, the child's welfare shall be the Secretary of State's paramount consideration in the exercise of his powers under this Part of the Act".
  That means that all other considerations, whether of cost or more widely, would have to be subordinated to that single test. I appreciate that that is a reflection, of a sort, of considerations in the Children Act, but that consideration in the Children Act is utterly and completely different from the context with which we are dealing, as I hope to demonstrate in a moment.
  1034
  The approach of my noble friend Lord Judd is a correct one. We have no doubt at all of our obligations under the 1951 Convention on Refugees. I agree with him that the scale of recent, almost volcanic, movements is perhaps one which we had not anticipated. By "we", I mean all governments in different countries who are faced with those problems. We need and want to ensure that a person seeking asylum is not prevented pursuing the claim by virtue of destitution. Hence our commitment to provide support in terms of accommodation and essential living needs for destitute asylum seekers. We want to do that efficiently and humanely. We have not succeeded in that in the past. I repeat what I have said on a number of earlier occasions: delay and uncertainty are no friends to those who will, in the end, be successful; nor are they helpful daily companions to those who are going to fail.
  I do not believe that anyone can dispute that we currently have ramshackle, incoherent, unstructured and unsatisfactory arrangements which have been developed over the years, significantly, on an ad hoc basis. The question of whose fault that is is utterly beside the point. The fact is that that is an accurate description of the present situation.
  I return to the point made by my noble friend Lord Judd. He is quite right in saying that we want to promote the welfare of asylum seekers. We shall ensure that desk instructions to our own staff will make that perfectly plain. The obligations imposed on our contractors will lay emphasis on the need—I am happy to re-affirm that again to my noble friend—to have full regard for the welfare of asylum seekers. That means that they have sufficient support; proper access to medical and other facilities so that they are able to cope in a strange society; and that they are protected from harassment or other threats. We shall have a budget of £300 million to provide that support during the first full year.
  I take the point made by the noble Baroness about people who claim to be from Kosovo—whether they are or not, I do not know in every case—who beg with small children in the street. When the point was last raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, I pointed out that most of us have had that experience. That point does not derive from whether or not the arrangements will put the interest of children paramount. Social services departments have a proper role to play in cases where children are at risk as a result of behaviour, some of which, without being uncharitable, is certainly questionable to many of us as to whether it is based on true need as opposed to organised begging, which sometimes comes close to intimidatory behaviour for some people. I do not believe that the noble Baroness and I disagree on that point.
  Whether or not we reach conclusions agreeable to all Members of the Committee, we have been prepared to listen. I invite noble Lords to look at the letter to which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, was kind enough to refer. It is quite extensive and deals with concerns raised by him, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and Mr Kaye. We have replied to it in some detail. I hope we have been able to give some detailed replies to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams.

  1035
  I know that a good deal of concern was expressed at Second Reading and in conversations with colleagues on all sides of the House about the level of support. We shall consider support levels in more detail. Perhaps I should tell the Committee one or two of our developed thoughts.
  We have decided, after listening carefully over a period of weeks, that the provision of spending power in respect of children under the age of 18 should be set at a level that is the current equivalent of income support personal allowance for children. At present values that would increase the spending power of a family of four—two adults and two children—from about £90 a week to £106 a week. Some of that will be paid in cash and the remainder in vouchers.
  We propose that the provision for adults should be on the basis that there will be a combination of cash— I mentioned the increase a second ago—and vouchers. However, we should not overlook the "in-kind" provision: accommodation that is furnished, fuel and power paid for; the full range of domestic utensils, linen, pots and pans and so forth. I can fairly say that that will broadly represent what those adults would receive on income support. Following what I have said, I do not think it will be easy to say that we are offering something less than comparable with what would be available on other support systems.
  I repeat that we have listened carefully to what has been said in another place, here and in discussions with officials and colleagues. I do not want to be unkind or to be seen to be harsh. We cannot discharge any governmental duty—I hope that does not sound too pompous a phrase—to one section of those who are worthy, without considering the interests of all. We see others in our society begging in the streets, sleeping rough and close to destitution. Others in the community are near destitution and we have to consider fairly the cost of providing support. We need to ensure that the arrangements provided support those in genuine need.
  Therefore, we are trying to secure that the asylum seeker will broadly be in the same situation as a local person who is similarly destitute and who is receiving income support and other social security benefits. I do not believe that that is an unreasonable or ignoble stance.
  The different way of providing benefit to asylum seekers reflects our concern. To have a separate system of support for asylum seekers we have to cater—to take up the point made by my noble friend—for the particular needs of people who arrive in this country often with no possessions, and without the normal means of coping independently in a strange environment. I believe that to accommodate sensitively people from a particular linguistic, ethnic or cultural group in an area where there are others of the same linguistic, ethnic, cultural or national group is a generous step, rather than dumping them in anonymity, as has often happened, in a place where there is no local, friendly hand to be stretched out to them.
  I cannot accept either of the amendments, but I am spending a little time—as I promised—giving the reasons. I do not think that Amendment No. 152 achieves the necessary balance between the welfare of asylum
  1036
  seekers, on the one hand, and proper alternative considerations which we need to have—I have mentioned them briefly—on the other.
  In relation to Amendment No. 153, I respect the concerns, as always, of the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Dholakia, who tabled the amendment. The welfare of children should never be treated lightly. Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, this is a reflection of what is found in the well known words of the Children Act. The paramount description in the Children Act is used in a specific limited context and refers to the considerations that the court must have in mind in making an order in respect of a child. That is the context and that is the derivation. That is quite different from the wide context which is proposed in Amendment No. 153.
  I understand perfectly well why it is introduced in Amendment No. 153. However, if that is to be construed, as it must be, in the ordinary meaning of words, the child's welfare, irrespective of all others, must be the paramount consideration. We could not deliver that. We have to have sensible regard to cost; we have to have sensitive regard to the legitimate, sometimes competing, often distinct demands of others, who are not necessarily all well off and who have financial deprivation to deal with as part of their every day existence.
  I repeat that assistance to children of asylum seeker families will continue to be available under the Children Act. I do not believe that any government could deliver on Amendment No. 153.
  I turn to a specific point, which I hope has not been overlooked. Clause 113 places a clear duty on the Secretary of State. I turn to some of the themes developed by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis. Subsection (3) of Clause 113, on page 70 of the Bill, states:
  "If it appears to the Secretary of State that adequate accommodation is not being provided for the child, he must exercise his powers … and if his offer is accepted by providing or arranging for the provision of, adequate accommodation for the child as part of the eligible person's household".
  So the duty is in Clause 113(3). There is a further duty in Clause 113(4) which states:
  "he must exercise his powers … by offering … essential living needs for the child as part of the eligible person's household".
  I believe my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis is quite right. We are looking at different concepts. We say that we have the power and we have the obligations under Clause 113, but we cannot have a duty which is as widely put as this because that would mean there would be enforceable sanctions on the Secretary of State irrespective of other considerations. I repeat, I hope not harshly or with any hard feeling, that no government could operate on that basis.
  Again my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis is quite right in respect of the difference between a duty and a power. The exercise of the power, or non-exercise, would be subject to judicial review on the usual basis of rationality or irrationality. We want to exercise our powers in a decent and sensitive way. I hope that some of the things that we have done, even the announcement that I have been able to make to the Committee this evening about the difference in support, reflect that we have been listening.

  1037
  I cannot accept any amendment that would require the Secretary of State to give primacy to one consideration, even the welfare of a child, above all others. I repeat that I am not aware of any government that can deliver on that.
  We are making the provision because we want to make sure that children and families are properly and decently cared for. I repeat the commitment—I hope at not too great a length—that if the average time for processing the initial application for asylum by a family is not down to an average of two months by 1st April 2000—that is not far away—we shall not bring families into the new support arrangements at that time.
  In future, families will rely and will need to rely on the new support arrangements for a fairly short period of time. Within that time period we shall make arrangements to ensure that families with children will be entitled to the full range of support and assistance, including education, free school meals, milk vouchers, healthcare, free prescriptions and access to social services. In other words, we shall take full account of the welfare needs of the child.
  I go back to my noble friend Lord Judd. We shall want to reflect those matters in the guidance that we give to case workers and those providing services on the ground. I can go no further than that. It is a reasonable point to have arrived at. I am perfectly happy, as always, to consider detail, but I repeat, I hope without discourtesy, that we cannot go further than that.
  7 p.m.
  Lord Judd: Before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I can say that some of his remarks go a long way to meeting my point. I thank him for that, though we shall want to see the guidance and the spirit in which he spoke put into words. However, I hope my noble friend will forgive me if I pick up on two points.
  The first is a specific point dealing with what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said. The complaint is not whether in the aggregate vouchers and money reach the same level as would be available to destitute people in this country, though that is a pretty minimalist approach. My noble friend talks genuinely about the "real" refugees and the "real" asylum seekers. We have to recognise that people who have been through that situation are looking for security. They are desperately affected by the stigma of vouchers. They do not have the cash in their hands to the same extent as an English person would to give them even that degree of confidence. Their vulnerability and insecurity are accentuated. That is why there is concern on that issue.
  The second point is more about presentation. My noble friend is someone I greatly respect and I am glad he is in the work he is in. But I wonder whether he will read some of the comments he made tonight. He is inclined to say, "Yes, we will do this. Yes, we have this commitment. But we must remember that we have other responsibilities". Some of us would say that that is exactly what is wrong. We should be saying, "Of course we have responsibilities to the taxpayer. Of course we have responsibility for dealing with people who are abusing the system. But we must remember that we have our commitment to the refugees and asylum seekers and that must be the guiding principle".
  1038
  It is a balance of language and I ask the Minister, as a friend, to look at some of the things he said tonight to see whether in the future the balance of language can be changed.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: I wonder whether my noble friend would agree with this. It is not so much a question of a balance of language; it is a balance of commitment and attitude. The way in which certain Ministers in the Home Office in the past dealt with their responsibilities, in my view, fell short of what is desirable or even acceptable. I do not know how we legislate for that situation.
  I have every confidence that, as a Minister, my noble friend shows every indication of sympathy for the arguments adduced on these issues. I am sure that in so far as it falls to him to administer these matters, they will be dealt with sympathetically. I would feel aggrieved, in fact, if any Minister in this Government adopted any position other than that. The difficulty arises in being able to formulate this commitment in a statutory form acceptable to the community at large. It is important that we generate within the community a respect for and understanding of the way in which refugees arrive in this country. We must not do anything to create a rift or lack of understanding— there is enough misunderstanding already. It is the job of government to try to deal with that situation, but not necessarily by statute.
  That is the appeal I make to my noble and good friend Lord Judd. I share his sentiments, though I am not sure I arrive at the same conclusions in relation to whether or not the statutory form giving rise to those sentiments can be set out. There is considerable difficulty in imposing that duty. My noble friend dealt adequately with that point and I accept his reasoning in relation to it. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, will accept that I agree with much of what he expressed but do not feel that he necessarily chose to go down the right route.
  Lord Dholakia: Perhaps I can add a further question to that asked by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. Will the Minister accept that we are dealing with an unusual situation? We have a backlog of between 70,000 and 80,000 asylum applications. Many of them, on his own estimate, are people who may be economic migrants to this country. However, the present Bill locks all doors through which asylum seekers can come to this country. At some stage, before long, we shall be dealing with only a handful of refugees and asylum seekers. Why therefore do we need a voucher system which has not worked in other parts of the country? Why do we need effectively to create a bureaucracy on the basis of the inability of the previous and present governments to clear the backlog and one that will cost more to run than the system presently available to asylum seekers?
  The Lord Bishop of Ripon: As we seem to be putting a number of questions to the Minister at this stage, perhaps I can press him on one further matter in relation to the figures with which he provided the Committee on the levels of benefit. He claimed that with additional resources being made available the benefits payable were

  1039
  largely comparable to those being paid to people on income support in this country. He will be aware that those figures are contested.
  I believe I am right in saying that with the additional provision, the Minister said that around 90 per cent of the true benefit is being paid. The claim is being made elsewhere, on good grounds, that that figure should be 80 per cent. Furthermore, that is a level of income benefit which is widely recognised as being inadequate for the proper and reasonable support of people in this country. The Minister is therefore taking a figure which is widely regarded as low and reducing it further. Under those circumstances, is it not going to be difficult for people to maintain, with any dignity and reasonableness, the kind of life to which they ought to be entitled in this country?
  The Earl of Sandwich: My noble friend is itching to get back on his feet once the Minister has sat down. I shall try not to anticipate what he is going to say.
  What is not in dispute is the courtesy of the Minister; a courtesy which, as my noble friend said, was shown when we came to see him in his office. But he did not use the big guns that he has just brought out; he was using more moderate tones and, in particular, as my noble friend said, the word "flexibility". But it was the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, who suddenly brought me back from the idea of flexibility to the principle that we are facing when we are thinking of the universality of children and the best interests of the children. Those phrases lead me back to the Children Act; they do not lead me to the asylum support directorate.
  We are talking about a different kingdom when we go along that route. I recall the words of the noble Lord, Lord Judd. He asked what signal the Government were sending. I refer briefly to one small signal in Written Answers this week in reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger. On the question of free school meals for children of asylum seekers, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said
  "If the Asylum Bill currently before Parliament is enacted, it will remove the right of asylum seekers to claim these benefits".
  The Minister continued,
  "However, their children and unaccompanied children seeking asylum will be eligible for free school meals".—[Official Report, 19/7/99; col. WA 86.]
  Children have the same basic living needs whether they are asylum seekers or resident. This kind of signal to the Committee and society at large seems to me to be in contradiction of the principles agreed under the Children Act.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: Before the noble Lord, Lord Alton, considers his final remarks in response to the Minister perhaps I may raise another issue. The Minister has quite fairly pleaded with us to limit ourselves very much to particular points in further amendments. Therefore, in a sense he has invited us to talk more widely on these two amendments and to limit ourselves thereafter. I shall abide by that.
  There is one other issue which is very close to the one raised by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, which relates again to children. We welcome what the Minister has said
  1040
  so far. But one of the assumptions made in the provisions for support within Part VI of the Bill is that there will not need to be replacement of the possessions of asylum seekers in this country.
  My noble friend Lord Dholakia has pointed out that in the much more stringent system which this Bill will introduce those who are likely to arrive in this country will probably be the most extreme cases of desperation among refugees. This country responded relatively generously to the refugees from Kosovo. They were literally run out of their homes, some with 10 minutes notice, and took nothing with them. Evidence has attested to the fact that they did not even bring another set of clothes, a pair of shoes, a handbag or anything of that kind.
  More than anyone else, children require the replacement of essential articles. Children grow out of their shoes. They need replacement nappies. They need new clothes as they grow. They need to attend school without being stigmatised as the kid that comes wearing nothing but a pair of old gym shoes with holes. That is another aspect of our concern about children. The replacement of goods for children is particularly acute. Alas, the singling out of children by their peer group is often an act of common child cruelty with which most of us are familiar.
  The right reverend Prelate pointed to the way in which vouchers stigmatise children and so they do. Yet, if the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, is correct, they will have no access to school meals and there will be problems in receiving the kind of support they need. In his response perhaps the Minister can address this aspect of a problem which concerns many of us.
  7.15 p.m.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I shall. I hope that I shall not be accused of bringing up the big guns. I am saying that we have to bear in mind that there are competing demands that need to be attended to. A great number of the questions which have been raised I addressed in a quite lengthy letter to the noble Lord, Lord Alton. I shall come back to them because it may be that some Members of the Committee have not seen them.
  In the second paragraph of the letter I set out the nature of the accommodation that will be provided. It states,
  "Some asylum seekers will be given hostel accommodation with full board and lodging, and will need cash only for incidentals. Where they are given self-catering accommodation, this will come with the utilities paid for, and with full equipment (which a normal tenant might be required to provide for himself) provided by the Home Office. Taking these factors into account we are clear that our support would generally be equivalent to around 90% of what is available to people on income support. But we are thinking carefully about whether the present package will meet all the needs of asylum seeker families".
  That is dated 15th July and today I have given an indication of what we are going to do about increasing the cash.
  Questions have been raised about the accommodation of asylum seekers in unsuitable areas. I said in that reply,
  "we are genuinely concerned about the pressures that current arrangements are placing on housing in London;".

  1041
  If anyone suggests that that is not true they are living in a different world. I did not put that in the letter. That is my observation and it is true.
  "these are unsustainable in anything but the short term. We therefore feel it would be better to re-house the asylum seekers in areas of the country where there is less pressure on housing. We envisage that the areas we select will build on the experience that the Local Government Association and local authorities are now developing…. As we indicated some months ago, our criteria for areas suitable for receiving asylum seekers will be, firstly, that there is a reasonable supply of suitable accommodation; secondly, that there is a viable multi-ethnic community or at least a history of racial tolerance in the area; thirdly, that there is a potential for developing viable support arrangements for asylum seekers. Certainly we do not wish to see asylum seekers left isolated or at risk of threat or attack".
  All those points depend entirely on the points that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, raised. I did not read them all partly because I sent the letter so recently. I do not believe that one can say that one is bullying, intimidatory or using the big guns. I am simply saying that we are approaching this matter in a humane way.
  I turn to one or two other points that were made. There are other questions discussed in our meetings with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, about access to medical attention and care. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, also raised them. I hope to be able to give some positive news about some of their queries.
  Perhaps I may deal with one or two questions and phrases used. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, asked about school meals. I intend to bring forward at Report stage an amendment to allow asylum-seeker children free meals. I am not claiming that as a virtue; I am simply saying that we have genuinely listened to the kinds of questions, including the general spectrum, raised recently by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams.
  When I was replying at some length earlier I said that we would be looking to provide a full range of support and assistance, education, free school meals, milk vouchers, healthcare, free prescriptions and access to the social services. Both my noble friend Lord Judd and the right reverend Prelate said that some of the figures were in dispute. I do not believe that an up-to-date calculation has been made on the figures that I gave this evening because it was not possible to do it. Both the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend Lord Judd said that I was comparing something that I was offering with something which is fairly minimalist anyway. That underlines my point.
  In this country we have a system of support for those who would otherwise be destitute. I am saying—I hope not in a disagreeable way—that what we are trying to offer people who come to these shores in need is something roughly comparable in terms of support to what we give our own citizens who are also destitute and who can sometimes be seen sleeping rough in London or begging at railway stations.
  When I say that no government can deliver what Amendments Nos. 152 and 153 demand, I am simply telling the truth. It may be a disagreeable truth, but I am not prepared to say things which are hopelessly unrealistic and which raise and then cruelly shatter people's hopes. I appreciate that we are discussing amendments, although by general consent we have gone off into a wider review on a Second Reading basis.
  1042
  As regards Amendment No. 153, the child's welfare should be the paramount consideration. But it is not unkind or threatening to say that no government that I know of can deliver that. There is no point in putting matters in Bills which become Acts of Parliament to make us all feel better. That helps no one.
  Lord Alton of Liverpool: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. The amendment does not say '"In any question". It states,
  "the child's welfare shall be the Secretary of State's paramount consideration".
  In other words, it is part of a hierarchy of considerations that the Secretary of State will take into account, but above all others his paramount concern will be the welfare of the child.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I may have misread the amendment. It states,
  "When any question arises with respect to a child, or with respect to any household which includes a child, the child's welfare shall be the Secretary of State's paramount consideration".
  I do not believe that I have a wrong copy of the amendment. I am simply saying as gently as I can that no government will be able to deliver that provision. I repeat as kindly as I can that putting things in Acts of Parliament to make us all feel better and all the more humane is not to the point. What is to the point is achieving a regime which is fair and decent, which does not make people destitute, but which has to be looked at in the context of a country in which other people live.
  Members of the Committee may find these truths to be disagreeable. Perhaps I may, for example, turn to the remarks made by the noble Baroness. I should point out that I am trying to answer a number of different questions, and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has the infinite benefit of the last word. The noble Baroness said that no one wants children to be stigmatised and no one wants to see them going to school with raggedy clothes. Of course they do not. I am putting forward the generally comparable nature of what we are offering to asylum seekers as being truly generally comparable with what we offer our own citizens. That is not a perfect answer. Indeed, the noble Baroness might say, although she is too generous, that that is an ignoble answer. I am simply saying that what we provide for people in the difficult circumstances described by noble Lords has to have an appropriate measure in the context of what we offer others.
  The noble Baroness said, as we all know, that when children grow up their feet grow at an alarming rate and they need new shoes every five minutes. Indeed, they also need changes of clothing, as do working parents in this country and those who have no employment. People who sleep along the Embankment feel the cold and the rain in the same way as we do. Therefore, in every instance I do not think that the responses have been proportionate to what we are doing, as opposed to what people say we are doing.
  I return to Amendment No. 152. What we have here are really declarations of desired objectives. I do not believe that there is any sentient being who would not regard these objectives as being desirable. I am simply saying that if

  1043
  one puts such provisions in the Bill, they are not capable of being delivered. I personally think that the best way forward is to listen carefully to what noble Lords say in this Chamber and elsewhere to see what we can manage to achieve. If the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, will not mind, perhaps I may take just one example. They were particularly concerned about access to specialist medical attention—I know that the noble Earl has also raised this matter—for those who are victims of torture. We shall deal with that issue later this evening, but I believe that we have been able to think carefully and constructively in that respect. That is the way to get a better outcome.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: Does the Minister concede that some of us on this side of the Committee have pressed very hard for what we regard as a somewhat better deal for those wearing raggedy clothes among our own citizens?
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: Of course I do. I have always recognised that fact. I am simply pointing out that as we have to deal, by and large, with the world we recognise rather than the world which we wish to inhabit—though the two may not always be enormously different—any government have to consider how such provision will fit into the general social context. My noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis is absolutely right. Anyone we assist from foreign countries is not coming here to live in a bubble or a balloon; he or she will live in a community.
  My noble friend is also right to say that one wants to be as constructive and moderate in language as possible. I did not regard my language as at all incendiary or disagreeable, although my noble friend Lord Judd chided me about it. If one is poor and one's life is pretty disagreeable, someone will have to answer the perfectly fair question: "Who's paying for all this?" Everyone in this Chamber has a duty to answer that, and pretending that the question is not there does no one any service.
  Earl Russell: Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether I could possibly be dispensed from his request to make general remarks on this amendment. I would prefer to make my remarks on Amendment No. 156 for two reasons. First, they are germane to that argument and wide of this one; and, secondly, I missed the beginning of the debate on this amendment and, therefore, have remained silent. I hope that that is agreeable to the Minister and the Committee.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am here to serve the Committee. I shall do my best to reply to amendments. However, I think that I serve the Committee best by replying to specifics rather than generalities. The debate has ranged widely, and that is perfectly reasonable. Indeed, I do not criticise noble Lords for doing so. I have been longer in my response than I normally hope to be. However, I cannot be expected to deal with every general review of the wider panorama when dealing with each specific amendment in Committee. I believe that that is fair.
  Lord Alton of Liverpool: We have had a wide-ranging debate. I am sure that we look forward to hearing the
  1044
  noble Earl, Lord Russell, on subsequent amendments. I am sure that he will, as always, ensure that his remarks are in order and that they will be pertinent enough to require relevant replies from Ministers. The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, said that this had been akin to a Second Reading debate. I think that it has almost been a pre-emptive clause stand part debate. There is perhaps something to commend the idea of looking at the sections of this Bill, or Bills like it, in the way that we have done. In that way, we would look at Part VI in some thorough detail, thereby setting the scene, and could then contextualise the amendments which follow. There is merit in that approach.
  However, as we have moved from the generalities to the specifics of the two amendments, it has been difficult. Therefore, in my short reply I shall deal with the two amendments under consideration and the actual words which appear in the Marshalled List. The Minister is far from being "disagreeable"—the word that he used in response to his noble friend Lord Judd. The problem with the noble Lord is not that he is disagreeable but that he is an eminent lawyer and knows his way around statutes probably far better than anyone else in this Chamber. I am sure that people in the past have paid him substantial sums of money for presenting the argument in the very eloquent way he has done tonight. I am sure that we get him very much on the cheap. No doubt the Committee will agree that we are privileged to be able to listen to him dealing with these questions from the Dispatch Box.
  I should like to take the noble Lord back to the remarks he made about Amendment No. 153.1 pointed out to him that the amendment does not say, "When any question arises with respect to the child … this will be the paramount consideration", in the sense that anything at all that is raised concerning a child will outweigh any other consideration. I felt that the noble Lord used his eloquence as a lawyer to put forward his argument. In fact, he persisted throughout the debate in suggesting that in some way this provision would place an unspeakable duty on all of us which was undeliverable. Indeed, he said that this was something which could not be delivered. He also said that no government could operate on that basis.
  However, that is not what we are asking for in Amendment No. 153. It refers to,
  "any question [which] arises … in the exercise of his powers under this Part of this Act".
  It is specific to the issues that affect children arising under this Act. The amendment does refer to "paramount consideration"; in other words, we would not ignore every other consideration, not least those which are imposed on the Secretary of State to get value for money. As regards the Minister's slightly wider comments when talking about vouchers, I should point out that the Secretary of State also has a duty to get value for money.
  As the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and others suggested, we are left high and dry as regards knowing what the costs involved will be of the voucher system. For example, in a Written Answer to me early last week, the Minister said:
  "It is not certain at present how many personnel will be required solely to administer the voucher system. It is intended that the administration of the voucher scheme will be contracted out and contractual negotiations will take place during the Autumn. A small

  1045
  number of staff in the Asylum Support Directorate will be responsible for administering that contract".—[Official Report, 15/7/99; col. WA 59.]
  All of us would like to know what this will cost; and what the opportunity costs involved will be which could be used on processing applications. That, too, is a value for money argument. However, although it is an important consideration, it is not the only one.
  The Minister also referred us to Clause 113 and pointed out that there it is in statute. He said that there are obligations placed on the Secretary of State in subsection (3). If it is not possible for us to impose a duty in the way suggested during the debate, why it is possible for this subsection to state,
  "If it appears to the Secretary of State that adequate accommodation is not being provided for the child, he must exercise his powers under section 85";
  in other words, there is real duty and obligation expressed there in terms?
  Although I am open to the argument that, of course, the suggested provision could be rephrased in words that would be more acceptable to the Government, all that I am seeking to do in this amendment is to ask the Minister to accept the arguments put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Clinton-Davis, and others from this side of the Committee. Here is a duty that ought to be written on the face of the Bill. I give way.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: In one case that the noble Lord cited there is a discretionary element, whereas the other issue is mandatory. I do not think that the noble Lord is drawing a distinction between the two.
  Lord Alton of Liverpool: The distinction that I am drawing is that there ought to be a mandatory requirement on the Government to have a duty towards the paramount interests of the child. This is not something that we should just leave to the discretion of Ministers. Elsewhere in the legislation mandatory obligations are laid down. I have just mentioned the one—to which the Minister referred—in Clause 113 as a model for dealing with this matter. It states that we should require the Secretary of State to exercise his powers under this part of the Bill in a way that puts the interests of a child at the top of the hierarchy of considerations.
  The same kind of words are used in Amendment No. 152 which states,
  "exercise their functions in such a way as shall best promote the welfare of asylum seekers and their dependants, if any, who require assistance under this Part of this Act".
  That does not, of course, mean that that provision will exclude all other considerations. However, the amendment seeks to place a provision on the face of the Bill that simply to take into account all the other factors that appear in these 148 pages of legislation will not be the sole preoccupation of the Home Office but there will also be a clear duty to take into consideration the way in which this legislation will affect the interests of the asylum seeker and the refugee.
  We have had a useful debate. Many good points have been made, not least by the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, who talked about the sight of tiny children in their mothers' arms. The noble
  1046
  Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, reminded us of the bench-mark in the Government's own White Paper. A series of other points were made, including that made by my noble friend Lord Sandwich on the question of school meals, to which the Minister responded. I was grateful for that response. I know that my noble friend will also be grateful for it. These are questions that go to the heart of the support that is given to one of the most vulnerable groups of people. Every one of the children's organisations that I mentioned in introducing the amendments said that they supported the terms of these amendments and that they would wish to see them incorporated in this legislation.
  With the passage of this Bill we should not leave the situation any less favourable than that which applied under the terms of the 1989 Children Act. My fear is that we have taken away the safeguards of that legislation and we have put nothing else in its place. The words I have suggested may not be the best words, but I hope that between now and Report stage the Government will give further consideration to these issues. They have already said that they will meet the children's organisations to discuss related questions. I hope that they will discuss these matters with them too and perhaps when we reach Report stage the Government will bring forward their own amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 153 not moved.]
  Lord Burlison: I beg to move that the House be now resumed. In moving this Motion I suggest that the Committee stage begins again not before 8.35 p.m.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  House resumed.

Western European Union
7.33 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede rose to ask Her Majesty's Government how they see the development of the defence role of the Western European Union.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I joined the WEU Assembly some two years ago. Since then a lot has happened to change and to accelerate the course of European defence. Indeed the continuation of the Western European Union itself is now under question.
It is worth recalling some of the factors affecting WEU's relationship with NATO and its European members. WEU countries combined spend only 40 per cent of the total NATO defence budget. The German Government have recently said that they plan to cut their defence budget and the Austrians spend less on defence than they do on opera. The US provided 80 per cent of the aircraft used in the recent Kosovo campaign. George Robertson described this situation as "embarrassing"; the Washington Post put it more bluntly, saying it would take the Europeans two decades to catch up with the Americans,
"even if they had the money—and the will to spend it".
There has long been a desire to create a greater European defence independence, while most agree security and defence must remain the prime responsibility of national governments, accountable to their own parliaments within a NATO framework. While the Treaty of Rome sought to maintain peace and security in Europe through a Common Market, it was the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 which specifically called for a common foreign and security policy (CFSP), including the eventual set up of a common defence policy.
Since Tony Blair became Prime Minister, European defence initiatives have accelerated. The Amsterdam Treaty in October 1997 saw the CFSP develop with closer co-operation with the EU, WEU and NATO under the Combined Joint Task Force initiative, where NATO assets were made available to the WEU for limited humanitarian intervention, commonly known as "Petersberg" tasks.
The Anglo-French St Malo declaration of 3rd and 4th December 1998 gave further impetus to strengthening the European defence identity. The two key events were the signing of a letter of intent on defence co-operation and signing a joint declaration that called for Europeans to complete the provisions of the EU's Amsterdam Treaty to develop the CFSP. It also ruled out any responsibility in this area for the European Parliament or the European Commission, quite rightly in my view.
NATO's 50th anniversary summit in Washington again gave further impetus to a CFSP by moving NATO into a direct relationship with the EU. After Washington there was a far greater likelihood of the WEU being absorbed into the EU in some form or other.
This year's Cologne Summit in June further strengthened the CFSP, with the appointment of Javier Solana as the EU's first High Representative for foreign and security policy. The Cologne Summit also reiterated the EU's determination to develop its capacity to undertake the so-called "Petersberg" tasks.
Throughout the past two years the Prime Minister and Secretary of State have repeatedly argued that Europe needs to focus on its capabilities and its assets rather than on institutions. And it is no doubt their determination not to be sucked into sterile arguments about institutional responsibility which has contributed to the progress which has been made so far.
But I intend to argue tonight that the time has come to look at the institutional arrangements for European defence. The Americans have made it plain what they want to avoid in the development of a European CFSP. The three Ds: decoupling, duplication and discrimination. By decoupling they mean that the decision-making process should not be separated from the broader alliance considerations. There should not be duplication of NATO and European assets and there should be no discrimination against NATO members who are not EU members.
To these three Ds I would add a fourth: democracy. The WEU might not have an impressive operational track record, but in terms of building an institution
1048
which brings in the new democracies and provides a democratic forum to debate European defence issues it has an unparalleled record. I believe that this should be used and built on in whatever institutional arrangements are made in the future. It is the associate partners who give the WEU its life: Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Poland, Hungary and others. I well remember travelling with the WEU's political committee to Macedonia and Albania. In our party we had Hungarians, Turks and Croatians, as well as the old democracies represented by French, Italian and British parliamentarians. No other institution brings together such a diverse group of nations to debate their common security needs. It is precisely this institutional diversity which should be maintained in any future arrangements. Members, associate members, observers and associate partners should all continue to have a voice, though not necessarily a vote, in future European defence arrangements.
I return to the outcome of the Cologne Summit. The European Council decided in Cologne on the inclusion of only a limited number of the WEU's functions in the EU and the creation of a number of structures similar to those which already exist in the WEU. EU crisis management would take place under the CFSP, the second pillar, but this would not affect the WEU's other functions, including collective defence, which will remain outside the EU. This approach could be made to work and it could work without decoupling, duplication and discrimination, but it raises four important questions.
First, what are the constitutional implications of our existing treaty arrangements, some of which can remain in force inside the EU and others of which cannot? I am thinking of the modified Brussels Treaty, which is the collective security agreement of the WEU. This cannot be brought into the EU because of the neutral states who are members of the EU. So what of our treaty arrangements?
My second question concerns the EU cherry-picking the WEU's assets. What happens to the assets which it does not cherry pick? I have already referred to my third question; that is, what is the fate of the associate members, the observers and the associate partners?
My fourth, and perhaps most substantial, question concerns the democratic deficit which would be created if the WEU Assembly were not also included in the EU's second pillar. While defence remains exclusively the responsibility of nation states, it would be impossible to ask the European Parliament, made up of directly elected parliamentarians who are not answerable to member states, to take on the task of democratic parliamentary scrutiny. Senor de Puig, the President of the WEU Parliamentary Assembly, has called for a bicameral parliamentary system for defence. In his paper he says:
"the responsibilities of each chamber would initially be determined by the nature of the subjects they arc required to deal with, the Chamber of Nations having greater weight of authority in matters which continue to fall within the national remit"—
such as security and defence. The WEU Assembly could lay claim to being a fledgling Chamber of Nations.
It is worth noting that similar ideas were floated in other contexts. At the recent Council of Europe debate on the report of the committee of the wise persons it was suggested that the Assembly of the Council of Europe might become a second chamber to the European Parliament. While I am talking about parliamentary assemblies, what about the NAA? Surely it could be given a more constructive role in European and NATO defence.
I am sure that my noble friend Lady Symons will open her speech by saying it is capabilities which matter and debates on structures are of secondary importance. I agree; but I hope she will recognise that the WEU's greatest achievement has been its structures. It is the structure of the WEU which has given that institution its second youth. It has brought many countries from the former Soviet Union into our debates on our collective defence. I hope my noble friend agrees that these structures are an achievement, that they are worth learning from and that in many cases they are worth preserving.
7.42 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I must start with a congratulation and an apology. The congratulation is for my noble friend Lord Ponsonby on having raised this important matter; my apology is to the House for the fact that I shall have to leave before the end of the debate, irregular as that may be. That is because it is the 21st birthday of my eldest grandson and there is virtually no alternative.
Only when we have analysed what has just happened will we be able to see the way ahead. It seems to me that the main points are these. First, as far as concerns the negotiations which took place before the recent war, we should remember that the Yugoslav Parliament was only seized of them the day before bombing started. There was also Mrs Albright's private commitments to the KLA, which the Albanian Foreign Minister broadcast on 24th February, promising the KLA that it could become part of the Kosovo military establishment and have State Department support.
Was the war lawful? The International Court of Justice will eventually tell us. My noble friend Lady Symons has confirmed that, as she said last November,
"there is no general doctrine of humanitarian necessity".
So humanitarian necessity may demand action, but for it to be recognised as customary law, many other nations will have to agree.
There is also the question of the lawfulness (under the Geneva Conventions) of some of the weapons used. I refer to the "graphite bomb", depleted uranium and perhaps others. I am glad to see that my noble friend Lord Gilbert is here.
What of the opportunities given to defence firms to test their new systems? Some Kosovo weapons are already being hotly marketed. To some, the war was a commercial opportunity. Today the shareholders in weapons firms have a real, thick-wallet interest in the wars where their products can be both tested and used up.
1050
As far as concerns the legality of the targeting, is it lawful to attack the civil infrastructure on the grounds that it helps one's own victory? We are not talking about bombing in the course of a war of self-defence, but about an attack on a country whose government had indeed committed grave crimes against their own people but had not attacked us. Was it lawful to attack chemical, petrochemical and pharmaceutical works when the result could have been potentially life-threatening transfrontier pollution; to knock out the electricity supply when the result is hospitals without power; and television centres? Mr Netanyahu has said that when he bombed Lebanon's infrastructure a few weeks ago he was copying what the Americans were doing in Serbia. Was the bombing of the two civil nuclear reactors in Yugoslavia contemplated? Serbian intelligence warned scientists working at Vinca in advance, and they appealed to the International Atomic Energy Authority.
The long-term effect of the attack on the Chinese Embassy is that because it was precisely the areas in it used for intelligence co-ordination which were hit, the Chinese believe that it was intentional. Now they are letting us know all about their neutron bomb. They see the United States,
"arranging chessmen on the most critical places on the chessboards of the European and Asian continents [in an attempt] to establish two strategic platforms".
Those are their words of course. The Russians agree and are again carrying out nuclear exercises.
General Clark, writing in the current issue of NATO Review, mentions only the success of the forces under his command. But was the war's ending solely due to the effectiveness of the air war rather than to the work of Mr Ahtisaari of Finland and Mr Chemornyrdin of Russia and, at last, to a UN Security Council resolution, to which Milosevic bowed and in which NATO did not figure?
We must also consider the effect on non-nuclear weapons states around the world of this attack on a non-nuclear weapons state by the world's sole military superpower and its allies. Here was a major boost to all proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Some of us visited NATO last week. We were told that even this short war resulted in massive overstretch and ever more evidence of the technological disconnect between the United States and the rest of us. US officials are already declaring that we Europeans must spend much more on defence if we are to be useful military collaborators "next time". So over that looms the question of how to be the ally of a country which will not put its own troops' lives at risk and whose military plans are summed up as "full spectrum dominance", going from space-based lasers, through universal peacetime electronic monitoring, to dragonfly-sized UAVs for the conduct of urban warfare.
Do we think that the United States is, in general, in the big world, going in the right direction? Is its leadership both useful and responsible? We sometimes have to answer "no". Think of the UN, Kyoto, the WTO, the International Criminal Court, anti-personnel

1051
landmines, claims to extra-territorial jurisdiction; think, in short, of Senator Helms—and there is so often a Senator Helms.
There is a current American tendency to suppose that if there is not a diplomatic solution, there must be a military one. It is Mrs Albright's naive early question, "If we have this wonderful military, why don't we use it?". We should see whether we can somehow work with the American people rather than with what President Eisenhower called the military-industrial complex and the bureaucratic scientific elite within the Washington beltway.
I submit that those may be useful pointers to the distribution of functions among the three organisations: NATO, the European Union and the Western European Union.
7.50 p.m.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, it is a pleasure, as always, to follow the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. I wish his grandson a happy 21st birthday party. Having listened to the points he made, especially in regard to the United States of America, the conclusion that we draw is that we need a common European defence, foreign and security policy.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, for introducing this Unstarred Question. The noble Lord has been heavily and directly involved in the Council of Europe and the Western European Union. My small contribution to western European security was to command an armoured regiment troop and armoured car medium and close reconnaissance squadrons over a five-year period. The whole security map has changed since I did so. Like the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, I also visited the NATO headquarters, SHAPE and the WEU last week.
Those who approve of the role of the WEU and its contribution to western European security over half a century and who approve its aspirations and its work owe a particular debt to its secretariat, not least to the current Secretary-General, Mr José Cutileiro and his staff. I draw attention to Alyson Bailes, the British civil servant who is director for political affairs. I would describe their briefings to us as robust and up-beat. But during the question time session, it became clear that there was uncertainty as to the future of the WEU. That cannot be good for any organisation—as we know in this House. I hope that the Minister, in replying, will be able to dispel that uncertainty. Among the European nations, it is our nation—since the signing of the Treaty of Brussels in 1948 establishing the Brussels Treaty Organisation, modified in 1954 to become the WEU —that has fielded a disproportionate share of resources compared with other nations to promote security in Europe.
The main objectives of the WEU, as was demonstrated elegantly and eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, were as relevant then as they are desirable now, especially in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Without the WEU we should have found it far harder to integrate the
1052
Federal Republic of Germany, to restore confidence among the European nations, and to avoid waste and enable consultation to take place with the European Community when we most unwisely turned our backs when, in 1955, our friends met at Messina.
Likewise today, I suggest that, as we have failed to expand both NATO and the European Union as rapidly as we should have done since the demolition of the Berlin Wall, the WEU is the only forum where western European nations, the nations of central Europe, known as the 28 WEU nations, can conduct a dialogue.
In the wake of the break-up of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and events in Kosovo, it has been demonstrated that the WEU, even if it can call upon NATO troops, is not a forum for swift action. What we should have done is integrate the nations that were formerly under the Soviet Union into all our western institutions as rapidly as possible. They need us, and we need them.
Secondly, we must attempt to achieve a common European foreign and security policy, to which I understand Her Majesty's Government are committed and for which my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire and others on these Benches have argued skilfully and persuasively over the past five years.
I welcome the confirmation at the special European Union summit in Berlin in March that NATO's Secretary-General is to become the EU's first head of foreign and security policy. Does that mean that the European Union will absorb the functions of the Western European Union and develop the capability to act more independently of the United States than has been the case over the past five decades? If so, when?
In order to mount a sustainable European foreign and security policy, it is surely necessary to collaborate more than we have done. EU members spend £100 billion a year on defence and have 2 million of their citizens in uniform. Yet we still find it impossible to deploy a ground force quickly enough to deter a medium-sized state such as Serbia from murdering, deporting and brutalising nearly a million of its neighbours. The WEU as constituted has neither the military might nor the political will to achieve that. The European Union should, and must, have that; and it must be in place as quickly as possible.
I have three questions for the Minister, and I ask for reassurance on these three points when she replies. If the WEU is incorporated and absorbed into the EU, where does that leave the self-styled "neutrals"—Ireland, Finland, Sweden and Austria? Will they have the right to participate in political decisions or opt out of military decisions? Will they have a veto on future policy?
Secondly, will the Government press at Helsinki in December for a speeding-up of the process of integrating those nations in central Europe such as Romania, Slovenia and Lithuania, which have made such gigantic strides in adapting their defence forces to the NATO way of operating. We need their manpower, and they need our mutual security.

1053
My third question concerns relations with what are called the third countries. I declare an interest as a member of the British Ukrainian All Party Parliamentary Group. There will be a WEU/Ukrainian seminar in Kiev in early October. What will be the role of Her Majesty's Government at the conference? How do they intend to enhance co-operation within the framework of European security with those two nations, in particular with Ukraine?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I must interrupt the noble Earl. He is well over his time.
The Earl of Carlisle: I shall conclude my remarks. It makes sense for the European nations to co-operate more closely, to obtain value for money, and to have the military capability and the political will to act rapidly when the US is unable or unwilling to do so. That can best be done through the European Union with a common foreign and security policy.
7.57 p.m.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, I join previous speakers in thanking my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede for initiating this important short debate on a matter which is current and meaningful.
When I added my name to the list of speakers, I was not sure how the trend of the debate would go. I was greatly reassured by my noble friend's opening remarks. His overview and his comprehensive statement do not leave much for the rest of us to say. However, I should like to make a couple of points.
I have taken part in the delegation to the WEU for about 12 years. I am reconciled to the fact that institutional change will occur. There is no point in continuing to talk about rapid reaction forces, satellite surveillance units, the training of police forces in Albania and so on; those matters will move within the EU purlieu. There is no question about that. Therefore, the area of capability will move into the EU's environs. Again, there is little point in complaining about that, although some who are active in the WEU do not like the idea.
The principal difficulty, which has already been touched on, is the question of what happens so far as the associate members, and indeed the observer nations, are concerned. A democratic deficit will occur. About five years ago, with colleagues from the WEU, I engaged in a conversation with EU defence parliamentarians. At that first meeting and two subsequent ones over the next two or three years, it was clear to me that when there occurred such a transfer as is now being proposed, the WEU parliamentary concept of some kind of democratic control would be swept aside in a huge amalgam-type committee within the EU structure. One important event in the past few years in the WEU has been that a limited democratic control has been shown by parliamentarians from national parliaments.
I hope that at the least later this evening when the Minister replies, she will give an assurance that parliamentary assembly control in some form will
1054
survive. It cannot be within the structure of the EU because it would not take account of the associate member and observer status.
8 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, one of the problems facing the WEU as regards the parliamentary assembly is that since it was established we have had to send the same delegation to the WEU as to the Council of Europe. The latter is more prestigious, perhaps more interesting, it has a wider remit and from time to time it exercises influence in a way which is not possible in the WEU. It is therefore always pleasing that there are members of the delegation who take the WEU seriously. During the two years in which he served, my noble friend Lord Ponsonby devoted considerable attention to it. The House should be aware that he did not do so to the neglect of his responsibilities in the Council of Europe.
I paid a private visit to the assembly on its 50th anniversary and heard the tributes paid to my noble friend for the splendid work he had done to promote youth music in Europe. He has done the House a great service this evening by pointing out the difficult situation in which Europe is placed in regard to the organisation of its security. My noble friend has perceived the value of the WEU and I do not believe he has ignored the weaknesses. There are weaknesses, particularly of complacency within the Council of Ministers. There was complacency as they patted each other on the back over the past 20 years, when there has been a clear understanding and knowledge that most European member states within the WEU have been scarcely capable of offering any defence for themselves or any useful or reasonable contribution in the exercise of the cause of international peace and stability.
There has also been the problem that the parliamentary assembly has often been equally complacent, happily accepting being slaughtered if it were ever placed in a different position from that of the Council of Ministers. I recall from a debate on the subject last year that the assembly was prevented from pursuing something. The Secretary General then said to me that the assembly was only entitled to information about military forces for those units which were directly under its control. Those have been few and far between.
The difficulty is that the past 10 years should have demonstrated to the WEU (as I think they have) as well as to the EU (I am less certain of that) that Europe has been far too weak. It has happily sheltered under the American umbrella and often been jingoistic at the same time. It watched the horrors of Yugoslavia develop and did little or nothing until the American involvement began. Even now, one has doubts about the promises and commitments of all the member states in the alliance to ensure that Kosovo can clear its mind and return to peace and a vestige of normality.
One hears of the continuing reduction in defence in some member states, despite the uncertainties in Europe and beyond. It is absurd. It is quite wrong for Europe to continue to prosper and yet be insufficiently capable either of contributing to its own security or to the cause of international peace and stability.

1055
I fear the uncertainties—although my noble friend Lord Kirkhill is less uncertain—as to the direction in which Europe is going. A reference was made to the NATO journal today. I shall read the following from it,
"Future operations involving European Allies",
will possibly be led by the WEU or the EU. That alternative has been under debate in Europe for the past 10 or 15 years. The journal goes on to mention the need to have "focused interoperability" and the acquisition of "advanced capabilities". I wonder whether interoperability will be helped if responsibility is passed to the EU. That is particularly so, given the neutrality factor to which reference has been made.
Despite its weaknesses, the WEU has a great deal of knowledge and a considerable amount of experience. It has improved dramatically with the appointment of Colin Cameron as the clerk to the assembly, an appointment probably overdue and one which offers considerable advantages.
If we were to cede SCAT we would be doing ourselves a disservice. It would merely extend the period in which Britain has borne a necessary but inequitable share of European security and defence. Attention needs to be given to that, perhaps gently, in diplomatic language, but it ought to persist until fairer shares allow Europe to make a better contribution which the future will require.
8.6 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I also welcome the debate. To anticipate the Minister's closing speech, capabilities matter but institutions matter too. Rules and obligations matter. If the Government are to succeed in raising European defence capabilities, they will have to strengthen the European framework for shared capabilities. As we all know, institutions and rules help to bring pressure on governments to come up to the capabilities needed.
The WEU has always been a mechanism for doing something else. It is 51 years since the WEU was originally formed in 1948 in order to get the Americans to commit themselves to Europe. It was a pathway to the Atlantic alliance. A few years later, the British Government, Anthony Eden, used the WEU as a mechanism for sorting out the re-armament of Germany. It served to bring Germany into the Atlantic alliance. A few years after that, under the Harold Wilson government, it served as a mechanism for keeping discussions between Britain and the six alive, when General de Gaulle shut us out of the European Community.
In the 1980s it served as a means by which the French could edge back towards the NATO integrated organisation by reviving European defence. Since 1990 it has served two useful roles: one, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, pointed out, is in helping to bring the applicant states of central and eastern Europe closer towards western institutions, both the EU and NATO; and, secondly, serving as a pathway for sorting out the defence dimension of the common foreign and security policy in the European Community.
1056
I welcome the extent to which Her Majesty's Government are now pushing for an effective European pillar within the North Atlantic treaty. It has, after all, been Liberal Democrat policy for a long time. We all welcome sinners who repent and I look forward to the Conservative Party in turn, in about the 2006 general election manifesto, acceding to the same overall approach.
After all, NATO has now moved in that direction. In the Washington communiqué of last April we had a clear commitment to reinforcing the European pillar of the alliance. In the NATO strategic concept we had the clear statement that we want to reinforce the transatlantic link by ensuring a balance that allows the European allies to assume greater responsibility. The Americans and the Europeans are moving towards greater integration of European defence with European foreign policy. We are edging slowly towards a common foreign and defence policy. The appointment of Secretary-General Solana to the European Community's council secretariat is a significant step forward. We all recognise that it is necessarily a slow and delicate process, but I pay tribute to the British and French Governments for taking the lead and pushing in the right direction in the St. Malo declaration and subsequently.
I wish that the Government were a little more open about the institutional implications. I understand from the discussions that one hears quietly among officials at Brussels that the issue is intended to be on the agenda of the intergovernmental conference, to which we are committed. That is not surprising. The Maastrict and Amsterdam treaties both dealt with the Western European Union and edged it a little closer towards integration into the European Union.
We are slowly putting in place the foundations of a European foreign and defence policy. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, is right to ask about the continued usefulness of the WEU institutions. I have had professional dealings over the past few years with the WEU Institute for Security Studies in Paris. That is a valuable organisation and it is important that its work should continue. The assembly serves a helpful purpose in bringing national parliamentarians from European countries together to discuss defence and foreign policy. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, asked whether it should be a European assembly of national parliamentarians or should become a more effective transatlantic body, merged with the North Atlantic Assembly. Those issues need to be explored further.
In passing, I should say that one needs to beware the COSAC model of a chamber of national Parliaments alongside the European Parliament. I have been to COSAC meetings. The French want it to be a national alternative to the European Parliament. One eats extremely well, but I am not sure one comes back having learnt an enormous amount.
What should our future policy be towards the development of a defence role for the Western European Union? I hope that the Minister agrees that we want a progressive movement towards the absorption of the WEU into the EU as the defence dimension of a common foreign and security policy and as the European pillar of the Atlantic alliance.
8.12 p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I should be most interested to know from where the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, gets his brief, because it was identical to one that was given to me, even down to the fascinating statistics about the Austrian Army's expenditure on opera and the quotation from the Washington Post. My brief was prepared by a Conservative Member of another place.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, that is quite right. The noble Lord is referring to Michael Colvin MP. He and the Labour MP Jim Marshall provided me with the brief. They are both writing the submissions of their respective groups in the WEU Assembly on what they hope will happen to that assembly. There is a lot of cross-party agreement among British members of the WEU on that.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, that is obviously the case No doubt we shall be singing much the same song. I have a feeling that the Minister will be singing a song that she has sung many times before, because we have had debates on this and similar subjects many times. There is one difference for the noble Baroness in that she has the slightly larger figure of myself rather than my noble friend Lord Moynihan to deal with. My noble friend does an immense amount of work and has given me enormous sheaves of bumf, on which I could have based six speeches. In March 1998, my noble friend said:
"I offer the Government our unreserved support for resisting merging the European Union with the Western European Union. The Prime Minister is rightly proud of the article in the treaty which states that NATO rather than the European Union is the cornerstone of our defence".—[Official Report, 26/3/98; col. 1425.]
WEU members combined spend 170 billion dollars a year and the United States spends 270 billion dollars. Not unnaturally, the Americans complain about Europe's failure to carry its fair share of the burden of collective security. It is Utopian to believe that a federal United States of Europe would be able to agree a level of expenditure that would allow it to spend even half of what America spends on its own. The whole concept of a United States of Europe is Utopian. I pray that it will not exist during the lifetime of those of us sitting on all three Front Benches. We need to consider an alternative defence policy for the WEU that is at least remotely realistic. I appreciate the words of the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, who emphasised the relative strength of various countries.
NATO has preserved peace for 50 years, but today we have Instability and strife where the WEU has singularly failed to cope with the conflicts that have arisen. NATO, which involves American military resources, has come to the rescue. The Maastricht Treaty in 1992 called for the first time for the implementation of a common foreign and security policy. The Amsterdam Treaty called for closer co-operation under the common joint task forces concept. The St. Malo declaration gave a further boost to the idea of a European defence identity. At the Cologne summit in June the European Union
1058
committed itself to increasing its capacity for a joint foreign and security policy. That should mean that the will is there.
While I was preparing what I should say this evening, my noble friend Lord Carrington came in and expressed his regret that he was unable to speak this evening, because he would have had to leave halfway through the debate. I am sure that we miss what he would have had to say. I cannot accept the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, who I hope will read what I am saying in tomorrow's Hansard. My noble friend expressed forcefully his view about the chances of getting European governments to pay—he authorised me from his height to make that remark—particularly given the number of neutral countries involved.
All over Europe defence expenditure is falling. If that policy is in accordance with the political judgment of the countries of Europe, it becomes all the more important for Her Majesty's Government to maintain their close links with the United States. The most desirable policy seems to be to merge the political responsibilities of the WEU with the European Union. That is of course a compromise, with some of i he disadvantages of all compromises, but it has the incomparable advantage of keeping America involved in European defence. The figures on Kosovo show that it is the only realistic and viable course. Not only is it the only realistic course, it underlines the policy of these Benches and increasingly of the Government as well.
This is not the time for any action that would lead to a federal Europe in which there was a loss of government accountability to national Parliaments. In particular, it is not the time to merge the WEU with the EU. Nor should the WEU be revitalised by giving it a more distinct and discrete security identity within NATO. That would undoubtedly give closer relations with Russia and the Ukraine, but the disadvantages would come from having a common foreign and security policy without defence.
In a previous debate I laid emphasis on the value of the Article 5 mutual security obligations. Any policy that discarded those, although making the WEU a happier place for neutral countries, would lose for the participating countries the security that American involvement means. That is a real danger if the European countries come too close together. I hope that the Government will continue their policy of a close relationship with the United States as well as with Europe. I must quote, "Be sure to keep a hold on nurse, for fear of finding something worse".
8.19 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede for introducing the debate this evening. I thought the quality of his briefing was superb. It is only that I feel desperately left out as I failed to obtain the brief which so obviously the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, had, as did my noble friend.
It is important that we start from the position of Her Majesty's Government at the forefront of the new initiative, launched last October at Poertschach by my

1059
right honourable friend the Prime Minister, to improve the effectiveness of Europe's contribution to European security. The Western European Union is at the heart of the debate, as was pointed out by my noble friend. Of course, Kosovo has reminded us all of the very real issues at stake.
The first half of 1999 marked a defining point for European security and defence. NATO was enlarged on 12th March with the historic admission of Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary. In April in Washington, the NATO Summit looked at the future of the alliance, and agreed further to develop its European pillar. The Bremen meeting of the Western European Union highlighted the importance of developing European capabilities, and launched the second phase of an audit of those capabilities to enable us to learn where the gaps are and what must be done to fill them; and at Cologne, just over a month ago, the European Council took the debate a stage further.
As noble Lords have remarked, the EU appointed Javier Solana as the High Representative for its common foreign and security policy. Its historic declaration on European defence, following the welcome given to the process at Washington, committed member states to develop the Union's ability to take decisions on the full range of crisis management tasks. We agreed at Cologne that the EU should have the capacity for autonomous action backed up by credible military forces in order to be able to respond to international crises.
But, as my noble friend Lord Ponsonby pointed out, Europe needs to do more. European forces make up the bulk of KFOR under General Jackson. Collectively, we continue to play a leading role in SFOR in Bosnia. Yet with some laudable exceptions—above all the British forces—the deployment of many of the so-called European rapid reaction units earmarked for Kosovo was uncomfortably slow, a point made by the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle. In the months leading up to the entry of KFOR, and during the bombing campaign, we demonstrated our reliance on US technology and firepower. The European contribution was of course very far from negligible. It was alliance unity that won the day. But our various responses to the developing situation in Kosovo illustrated only too well the mismatch between our continent's size and economic weight, and its international presence.
This imbalance was one of the factors that prompted my right honourable friend the Prime Minister to launch the debate on the development of a security and defence capability to back up the EU's common foreign and security policy. I am glad that that initiative has been so warmly welcomed by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. The common foreign and security policy needs to be underpinned with credible military capability if the EU is to meet the challenge of playing its rightful role on the international stage. This capability is, and must be, based on our investment in NATO. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, when he said that NATO remains the cornerstone. I emphasise that to the noble Lord, although I know that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, will accuse me of saying the same
1060
things in many of our debates; but at least that has the merit of consistency. However, it is important that I reiterate the point, which has been raised again.
When we look at this issue, we must consider not only NATO, but its structures and infrastructure. Equally, Europe must not be so heavily dependent on NATO for peace support operations. The fact is that our North American allies may not wish to be involved in every crisis. We should develop further our capacity for acting without active US involvement. That should help us to contribute better to our cornerstone in NATO, and enable us to act where the alliance as a whole is not necessarily militarily engaged.
As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, pointed out, we have discussed these issues in your Lordships' House on a number of occasions. I have made it clear that our focus is on capabilities and functions, and not on institutions. The noble Lord exhorted me not to repeat that point, but I think that I should because it is important. Our aim is a real improvement in the way in which Europe tackles the crises it has to face. The agreement at Washington ensured that new security arrangements will develop in a way that is fully compatible with NATO. The Cologne declaration commits us to putting those new arrangements in place in the EU. Both guarantee that defence decisions will continue to be intergovernmental, respecting member states' sovereign rights to deploy and control their own armed forces. There is certainly no question of a European army, or a role in defence for the Commission or the European Parliament beyond their current role in CFSP.
At Cologne, member states agreed to include in the European Union those Western European Union functions which would be necessary for those new responsibilities. Final decisions should be taken by the end of the year 2000, at which point Cologne envisaged that the WEU as an organisation would have completed its purpose. This is consistent with our approach of examining what the EU needs to enable it to take decisions and rapidly to translate those decisions into action. The EU as a crisis manager should build on the achievements of the WEU.
The initiative launched yesterday at the UK-Italy Summit to set a timetable and challenging criteria for European defence capabilities and performance is an important stepping-stone along that path. It sets out Europe-wide goals for enhancing military capabilities to undertake crisis management, and national capability objectives to achieve this wider European aim.
But if the Western European Union is to have served its purpose by the end of the year 2000, it will have a great deal to do in the interim. I assure noble Lords that the WEU will continue to play a role until final decisions on defence in the Union are taken and the functions of the WEU are transferred to the EU. It is important that as we work on strengthening Europe's defence capability, we do not find ourselves in a transition period in which neither organisation can function properly. I wholeheartedly agree with my noble friend Lord Hardy of Wath that the WEU has, over the years, built up a legacy of crisis management "best

1061
practice", including a close working relationship with NATO. I assure the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, that we shall want to ensure that this legacy is carried over into the EU. That is something which should be a priority over the next 18 months of discussion.
We shall be looking for conclusions from the WEU Luxembourg ministerial meeting in November that we can use to develop our European defence performance criteria ideas. The audit of European defence capabilities, to which I referred earlier, is focusing on real defence outputs: force deployability; flexibility; sustainability; and, of course, at a time when multinational operations are increasingly the norm, as many noble Lords have said, the importance of inter-operability. Kosovo has demonstrated the importance of troops being trained and equipped to be able rapidly and effectively to face the challenges of modern operations. Identifying the gaps that need to be filled, and deciding how best to fill them, will be an important task for the WEU to fulfil.
There is another key feature of the WEU's legacy which we must use as a model for the EU. I am aware that, like other noble Lords, my noble friend Lord Ponsonby is concerned that European security arrangements should be inclusive. That was also a matter on which the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, concentrated. We agree that we should not build new harriers. The WEU has six associate members who are NATO allies, although not EU members, and seven associate partners who are members of neither organisation but are all associates of the EU and NATO Partnership for Peace.
I deal next with the European neutrals, on which the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, and my noble friend Lord Ponsonby touched. The neutral members of the EU have welcomed our initiative. Through existing WEU arrangements they are already able fully to take part in planning and decision-making for European crisis management to which they want to contribute. In particular, they welcome the emphasis in both the St. Malo and Cologne declarations on the need to improve European crisis management capability. We are encouraging them to strengthen their capabilities to enable them in future to take part actively in EU-led operations relating to such tasks.
There are also those who are in NATO but are not part of the EU. These allies, too, welcomed our initiative at the Washington Summit on 24th April. We support the participation of non-EU European allies in European military operations under the right auspices. We look forward to working closely with all allies as we take forward the work to develop NATO's European pillar.
Our attention has also been drawn to the WEU associate partnerships which include Romania, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Slovakia and the Baltic states. The Cologne declaration makes it clear that the EU will put in place arrangements to allow WEU associate partners to take part to the fullest possible extent in the new arrangements that we are considering. Similarly, we recognise the importance of the Ukraine to European security. We shall take part in that conference in October. We welcome such events.
1062
Reference was made to the democratic deficit. We agree that national parliamentary oversight of defence and security matters is crucial. We have discussed this on a number of occasions, not least when we debated CFSP in the context of the Treaty of Amsterdam. I reiterate this evening, as I did then, that democratic parliamentary control in these areas is absolutely vital.
My noble friend Lord Kennet is not in his place. I am bound to say to the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, that I regard a grandchild's 21st birthday as a reason for absence. I would have hoped that a family-friendly House could accept that. The points raised by my noble friend have been rehearsed in your Lordships' House on a number of occasions. For the record, Her Majesty's Government believe that our military action in Kosovo was lawful and that our targets there were legitimate.
This has been a momentous few months for European security in both theory and practice. There is no time to sit back because there is a great deal of work still to be done. The Western European Union will continue to play an active role in the work under way in Europe to strengthen the European contribution to Europe's security. The WEU will need to examine how best to transmit the legacy of its 50 exceptional years to the EU. It will play an active part in the ongoing efforts in all the organisations about which we have been speaking—the EU, WEU and NATO—to improve the real defence capabilities that we need in Europe. All this work must be clearly focused and co-ordinated to ensure that there is no mismatch between expectations and results. Your Lordships can be confident that Her Majesty's Government will remain at the forefront of that endeavour.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 8.35 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.34 to 8.35 p.m.]

Immigration and Asylum Bill
House again in Committee.
Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby moved Amendment No. 154:
Before Clause 84, insert the following new clause—

Immigration and Asylum Bill

  ACCESS TO LEGAL ADVICE FOR ASYLUM SEEKERS
  (" . In providing, or arranging for the provision of, support for persons under Part VI, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to make arrangements with a view to ensuring that those persons have access to legal advice from a representative chosen by the asylum seeker.").
  The noble Baroness said: We have already had a very full debate on aspects of support. Therefore, I shall adhere closely to the guidelines set out by the Minister who, very reasonably, suggested that in view of previous detailed and wide debate the Committee should confine itself to a close description of any amendments that follow.
  Amendment No. 154 is essentially a probing amendment. It is likely, as the Minister said just before the break, that asylum seekers and refugees would be dispersed around the country. He pointed out that the major criteria related to the provision of adequate accommodation, the existence of communities with which refugees and asylum seekers could identify and a history of good race relations within the area. It is possible that a number of refugees and asylum seekers will find themselves a long way from London. That is fair enough. However, in many cases the legal advice that they receive is concentrated in London and a small number of other major cities.
  The purpose of the amendment is to make sure that those who are involved in the asylum support directorate do their very best to ensure that asylum seekers and refugees are given information about access to legal advice and, where possible, are facilitated in getting it. It may be that some legal advisers will be willing to travel to meet a number of people who seek that advice in a particular area; and that is something which we hope the directorate will take into account. I give one example. In many cases it will be of assistance if the Home Office advertises the fact that, as seems likely, there is a list of registered practitioners, and particularly the two centres that are generally recognised to provide exceptional service.
  It would be extremely helpful if in the areas to which refugees were dispersed they could have access to such information on their arrival or, for example, by way of advertisements in ethnic newspapers. That would also be very much in the interests of the Home Office. Where legal advice is available it is likely that the appeal system will work much more efficiently and will not give rise to judicial review and matters of that kind. Therefore, it is in the interests of the Home Office, the immigration directorate and those who are concerned with the welfare of refugees that, as far as possible, this information should be made available.
  In one respect the amendment does not represent the views that we put forward, and therefore the wording is defective to that extent. At the end of the amendment the Committee sees:
  "a representative chosen by the asylum seeker".
  We believe that the reference should be to:
  "a representative from the registered list selected by the asylum seeker".
  We fully accept the Government's strictures as to from where legal advice should come. I beg to move.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: The Committee in considering this amendment is concerned also with Amendments Nos. 170 and 171 in the name of myself and my noble friend.
  I have to differ from the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. Amendment No. 170, although identical in wording, appears in a different place in the Bill! That is the only difference between us. Whether it is inserted before Clause 84 or after Clause 88 I am
  1064
  content to leave others to decide. But it is important that asylum seekers should have the possibility of legal advice.
  The Committee has the great advantage of the Minister giving us legal advice at frequent intervals during these debates. We have learnt to appreciate it even more than before. But we have also appreciated in the course of the debates the incredible complexities—to which, sadly, we add by these debates. None of us is in any doubt about the value of legal advice. That is reinforced in the case of those who are asylum seekers who by definition come from other countries, from traumatic situations, often speaking no English, and so on. I do not need to labour the point.
  Amendment No. 171 is closely related to the other two amendments. I am glad to support them.
  Lord Hylton: I support the thrust of all three amendments. It occurs to me that the amendments might be too narrowly drawn. They refer to legal advice and not also to legal representation.
  The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, makes the point that many asylum seekers have poor or non-existent English, and will need to be represented before an adjudicator or an appeal tribunal. In addition, they may be totally unfamiliar with our legal systems. For that reason, again, they require representation.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: One cannot impose a lawyer upon a client. It is one thing to offer him access to legal advice. It is important that that is done, but I do not think that the provision needs to be included in a statute. Advice may be given. There are various ways of offering that advice. I speak as a solicitor and I do not want to deny the opportunity of work to my colleagues in the profession. But this provision comes very close almost to insisting that someone should be legally represented, either in terms of advice, or, more particularly, in terms of representation. There may be a very good reason why someone does not wish to have legal representation through a professional lawyer. To insist upon that—the amendment comes very close to insistence—would be dangerous.
  I do not demur from the idea that someone should be advised if they want advice. But it should not go further than that. It is not necessary to include a provision in an Act of Parliament. The Minister may differ from me.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: The phrase used in the amendment is "have access to". It does not oblige anyone to accept legal advice. It simply says that there should be a duty on the asylum support directorate to make sure that individuals have access—and it is implicit in that—if they wish to use such access. It does not impose any action upon them.
  8.45 p.m.
  Lord Renton: These amendments refer to the granting of legal advice. In my opinion, the genuine asylum seeker should be given legal advice with legal aid, if legal aid is needed. I have been looking at other clauses of the Bill. I should be grateful if the Minister

  1065
  could say to what extent legal aid will be provided to people who turn out to be genuine asylum seekers. It is known that the majority of those who apply turn out not to be genuine. The genuine ones turn out to be the minority. For the bogus ones to be given legal aid, whether gaining advice or legal help in any other way, would seem to me to be wrong. I do not see why the British taxpayer should have to pay for that. But if the asylum seeker is genuine, it is perfectly reasonable that we should have to pay. Perhaps the Minister will be so good as to clarify that matter.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: I gave way to the noble Baroness, and then to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, but he has made his own speech, which is fine.
  I do not agree with what the noble Lord says. It begs the question of who is a genuine asylum seeker. It may be a matter upon which there is dispute. I hope that I have not misinterpreted the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. Making available access to a lawyer is one thing, but to insist that someone should be legally represented or receive legal advice on matters may be going too far.
  I come back to this point. It is not necessary to include the provision in the Bill. It would be helpful if the Minister could indicate whether some satisfactory explanation stating what may be available could be provided for someone who comes to this country. We cannot insist on legal representation either in the form of advice or representation.
  The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I support the noble Baroness. When we considered the first amendment in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, chided me gently because I mentioned that in this country we had either professional organisations or trade unions to assist us when we wished to be legally represented. He pointed out that there was a very good scheme of visitors who draw to the attention of asylum seekers the existence of legal advice. I took the point. However, with the dispersal policy, it will be more difficult for such advice to be given. Therefore the noble Baroness's point is important.
  The system is intended to be speedier. It is of paramount importance to ensure that a determination is not reached too rapidly without proper consideration of the asylum seeker's case. It is important that asylum seekers realise that they can have access to legal advice. I agree that the amendment refers to access. It is up to an individual to decide whether to make use of that access.
  With reference to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, one may be a genuine asylum seeker without being an asylum finder. Individuals may well have a good case which at the end of the day is not agreed by the person making the determination or on appeal. But those people may have a genuine case which needs to be heard. Part of the whole point of the system is that cases should be heard and determined. There will be those who have a good case, but at the end of day it will not be accepted. But they should be regarded as genuine asylum seekers.
  Earl Russell: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that one cannot compel anyone to
  1066
  have a lawyer. That is why my noble friend's amendment uses the word "access". You can take a horse to water but you cannot make it drink. You can give access to a lawyer; you cannot compel the person to use it. It was in that spirit that the amendment was put forward.
  Perhaps the most important and clearly necessary of these amendments is Amendment No. 171 which deals with travel costs. The right reverend Prelate has mentioned the problem of dispersal. It is a specialist field of law and those who are expert in it are overwhelmingly concentrated in a few firms in London. Almost all the great legal victories of which one reads are won by those firms of lawyers. I once had to advise a correspondent from Colchester—not an urea that Christopher Hill used to call one of the dark comers of the land—who had fallen into the hands of an incompetent adviser. My correspondent's case was good, but it was not until I put him in touch with Bates Wells and Braithwaite in London that anyone was able to develop the case for him to any satisfactory conclusion. Once I had done that, the case was strong and successful.
  Someone on the level of support that would be given to asylum seekers under the Bill might have to come down from Newcastle to consult a lawyer in London. The vouchers may be redeemable in many places, but I do not think that they will be redeemable at rail ticket offices. If Amendment No. 171 is not accepted, I do not see how deserving clients will be put in touch with competent lawyers. If that does not happen, injustice will. I hope that the Minister, who has done so much to help us already—that is much appreciated—will sympathise with the amendments.
  Lord Warner: I rise to speak against Amendments Nos. 154 and 170. It seems to me that they are based on a misconceived view. As far as I am aware, in this country we do not give people who may or may not be entitled to social security benefit access to legal advice about their entitlements. The amendments relate to Part VI of the Bill, which deals with support for asylum seekers. They are not about legal advice connected with people's entitlement to stay in this country.
  It is a longstanding principle of public administration that the agencies responsible for particular services make explanatory leaflets and materials available to those who might be entitled to their services. That is how the housing benefit system operates in relation to our own citizens, and the same is true for relief from council tax and access to social security benefits. Indeed, for social security benefits, we print the leaflets in different languages so that people have access to them. As far as I recall, before the 1996 Act, asylum seekers did not have access to legal advice about their entitlement to social security benefits. The amendments would be a change of direction that would be out of kilter with the way we run support arrangements for our own citizens.
  Earl Russell: If the noble Lord, Lord Warner, reads the report of an Unstarred Question of about three months ago on the take-up of social security benefits,

  1067
  he will see that domestic policy is taking a similar change of direction to that proposed by the amendment. It is not as far out of line as he suggests.
  The Lord Bishop of Ripon: May I also add the point that one of the responsibilities of the new asylum support directorate will be to deal with benefits and to handle the dispersal of asylum seekers? The point about access to legal aid is directly related to the dispersal policy. Therefore, it is right that the directorate should bear some responsibility.
  Lord Hylton: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, will appreciate that the positioning of Amendment No. 154 is precise. It comes before Clause 84, which is the interpretation clause, and before Clause 85, which deals with support. It is a free-standing amendment that deals with legal advice that can determine the whole future of applicants, and whether they are allowed to remain in this country or are deported to another country where they may easily suffer persecution and even death.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: It may be that the wording of the amendment does not achieve what we seek. What I had hoped to achieve through Amendments Nos. 170 and 171, and what I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, has achieved in Amendment No. 154, is access to legal advice on all the issues that arise under the Bill. Money for travelling will be provided under Part VI of the Bill, but the legal advice will not be limited to questions arising under Part VI. The point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon about dispersal is important.
  I point out to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that not all legal wisdom resides in London. I recall a case that went on for a large proportion of my time as a Member of Parliament. A constituent in Chipping Sodbury took local legal advice that unfortunately did not make the best of the case. He went to a big firm of London lawyers to sue the Chipping Sodbury lawyer and ended up suing the London lawyer. When he acted as a litigant in person, he succeeded where the local firm in Chipping Sodbury and the well-known firm of solicitors—I shall not mention the name—had failed. That demonstrates that one cannot anticipate the outcome of legal actions, even if it seems that the legal situation is clear.
  I have made the point before that half the lawyers in the country are proved wrong every day in court, because half of them lose although the other half win.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: I am proved wrong three or four times a day. Why cannot this matter be dealt with in the more informal way that I have suggested? Is it absolutely necessary to impose a legal obligation in the Act? Could not the Minister accept my suggestion that the issue could be dealt with by way of ministerial advice to those who deal with asylum seekers to the
  1068
  effect that on arrival at a port or elsewhere, they should be given a document that sets out what they may receive?
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: I cannot answer that question until I have heard the Minister's reply. Perhaps we should allow that now to happen.
  Lord Alton of Liverpool: I strongly support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley. I agree with the comments made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon about the problems that will be posed by dispersal. The more that we spread the load of asylum seekers around the country, the more that people will have to travel to centres of excellence to get legal advice. In my years as a constituency representative in Liverpool, people frequently used firms of solicitors in Manchester who specialised in such issues. Even within a region, there are well known firms that specialise in such matters and people have to travel to see those solicitors.
  In Amendment No. 171, the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, picks up the issue of travel expenses. I make the practical point that although I welcome the Minister's earlier comments about dependants, the position of under 25s remains the same. Under Part VI of the Bill, a person under 25 would receive £27.90 a week, of which £10 would be in cash and the rest in vouchers. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, pointed out, vouchers are hardly likely to be accepted at railway stations so the person would be left with £10 a week for travel. Put another way, that is £1.30 a day. No doubt many of your Lordships use public transport. It has been much in the news in the past few days, not least in the constituency of Eddisbury, where the Secretary of State, Mr John Prescott, used it. Everyone has been trying to wear their public transport credentials on their sleeve and I welcome that. But a bus ride from Pimlico to Westminster—a route which I know many noble Lords take because I see them on the bus from time to time, will cost £1. If only £1.30 a day was allocated to you, you would not have the money to make the simple return journey from one part of London to another, let alone from one part of the country to another.
  In practical terms, we need to improve the level of support. That again relates to the arguments about vouchers and the wider issues which we explored in the earlier debates. I shall not trespass into those territories because I, too, am happy to adopt a self-denying ordinance on that. However, there is a specific point to which the Minister ought to reply and the sooner I stop speaking the more quickly he is likely to do it.
  9 p.m.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: Perhaps I may make one final point. In many ways, Amendment No. 171 supports the Government's policy of limiting the number of legal representatives to which asylum seekers and refugees should have access. That limit is likely to mean that in some parts of the country there will be no one on the registered list. There will be a great temptation for asylum seekers to be approached by some

  1069
  of those we least want to see representing anyone because they give a poor service. But they will be accessible and they will be there.
  If the asylum seeker or refugee has no means of travelling to the people on the registered list, or to the refugee legal centre or the IAS, both of which have limited numbers of offices, the temptation to be represented by someone who just comes by, whose name they will not know is not on the list, will be very great. I beg the Minister to bear that in mind when replying to the amendment.
  Lord Avebury: At an earlier stage, we discussed the situation in Northern Ireland and the Minister said that special assistance will be given to the RLC and the IAS to establish an office in Belfast. Will he tell the Committee in what other parts of the United Kingdom special assistance will be given to those bodies to establish offices? Will they have offices in Scotland, Newcastle or Eddisbury? I was interested to hear the noble Lord's reference to that constituency, which was once represented by my grandfather. I dare say that anyone living in Eddisbury will have to travel to Manchester. I do not know how much the fare is, but I am sure that it is more than the £1 which the noble Lord mentioned as being the amount a person will receive for one day.
  Even if provisions are made for the establishment of RLC and IAS offices in the principal centres of population in the United Kingdom, unless the dispersal policies of the Home Office ensure anyone sent to the provinces will be within easy reach of such an office, a large proportion of their disposable income will be spent on travelling there.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: With respect to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, I do not believe that any of these amendments is necessary. From the drafting, it appeared that the concern was directed to the fact that the asylum seeker should be entitled to have the legal representative of his choice, m the course of the speeches, that has changed to providing them with legal advice. Legal advice and assistance is already available to asylum seekers in accordance with the provisions of the Legal Aid Act 1988 and will continue to be available under the provisions of the Government's Access to Justice Bill.
  In addition, the Home Secretary makes grants under Section 23 of the 1971 Immigration Act to the Immigration Advisory Service and to the Refugee Legal Centre, which are two voluntary organisations which provide free advice, assistance and representation at asylum appeals.
  The amendments propose that an asylum seeker should have legal advice from a representative whom he or she has chosen. As the noble and nimble Baroness spotted, that gave rise to problems about unscrupulous immigration advisers, a concern which we all share, so she gave an oral amendment to her amendment—that it should apply to those on the registered list. In that context, at the request of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, raised the issue with my noble friend Lord Williams of
  1070
  Mostyn—the Legal Aid Board has published detailed proposals for contracting immigration and asylum work to ensure that asylum seekers have access to good quality legal services. The Government are considering those proposals and will make their response known soon. The proposals are contained in the document Access to Quality Services in the Immigration Category. The proposals will limit the firms able to provide advice and assistance to those holding immigration and asylum contracts with the Legal Aid Board or Legal Services Commission. Contracting will improve the overall quality of advice and assistance provided and guarantee that asylum seekers receive competent advice.
  The report also proposes that legal aid funding should be extended to allow contracted firms to provide representation before immigration adjudicators and the Immigration Appeals Tribunal. Therefore, under the existing framework, legal aid and assistance are available. It is a matter for the Legal Aid Board as to how they are provided. In the document to which I have referred, it is consulting on the best way to provide it. The means it suggests would get rid of the unscrupulous immigration advisers and would seek to ensure that the advice is competent and widely available. That deals with the first two amendments.
  The third amendment, which was pushed hard by a number of Members of the Committee, relates to travelling expenses. The Government carefully considered that point when at an earlier stage they decided to provide under Clause 94(7) for the reasonable travelling expenses of appellants to asylum support adjudicators. The noble Lord's amendment would extend this to an entitlement to reasonable travelling expenses throughout an asylum seeker's time in the United Kingdom whenever he or his legal representative felt that a meeting was advisable.
  We do not believe that such a wide-ranging power is an appropriate use of resources. For one thing, the making of an asylum application does not require legal advice. Asylum seekers can present their cases to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate without the need for any assistance from a legal adviser.
  I would draw the attention of the Committee to Clause 86(1)(c), where the power is taken for the asylum support scheme to pay expenses incurred in connection with an asylum claim. The kind of expenses with which noble Lords are concerned—namely, travelling expenses to the legal representative—would fall under this power. The power is there in the appropriate case. It is better that it should be a discretionary power than a power as of right. In these circumstances, I believe that every point has been dealt with. I hope that the noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I should like to raise two points with him. I have before me the advice of the Legal Aid Board, which is of course described as recommendations to the Lord Chancellor. Before this moment, we had no reason to believe that those recommendations had been accepted—I do not know whether they have been. In the document, the Legal Aid

  1071
  Board points out, as we have done, that good quality advice and assistance should be made available at the earliest possible opportunity, but the board itself goes on to say that, in a number of cases, refugees and asylum seekers do not find it easy to obtain legal help and that it is widely acknowledged that individuals tout their services to new arrivals at main ports of entry.
  We are anxious to make sure that the individual asylum seeker or refugee is assisted to gain access to the legal advice which will help him, and not to anyone who happens to be cruising around. In that regard we have the Government's own wishes at heart. We simply suggest that the recommendations of the Legal Advice Board be accepted, and made viable for people who have been dispersed beyond the area where they can easily travel to obtain that legal advice.
  Finally, I very much welcome the Minister's comments on the refugee legal centres and the AIS, both of which we greatly respect in this Committee. However, the problem still arises that, at the moment, as far as I know, they have a very limited number of offices where the people who work for them can interview and see asylum seekers. I am sure that that is why the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, raised the issues that he did in speaking to Amendment No. 171.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The document to which the noble Baroness refers indicates that the Legal Aid Board is addressing the very problems which she raises. We cannot create high-quality immigration services throughout the country, where there are none. The amendments seek to make it a right for an asylum seeker to have the lawyer or legal assistance of his choice. In the course of this debate that has been expressed as the necessity of making legal aid available. It is available; the basis is set out in that document. As I have said, the Government are considering those proposals and will make their response known shortly. I do not believe that much more can be done on the face of the Bill.
  I recognise the importance of the point raised on travelling expenses, but would that not be best dealt with by a discretionary power to provide travel expenses where that is considered appropriate by the asylum support group? I am not sure what more one could do.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: That point would be met by the earlier issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, who said that it might be dealt with in another way. We are simply concerned about the possible effects of dispersal on some asylum seekers' ability to obtain legal advice. Therefore, we should wish to see whether the matter could be dealt with in some other way. Perhaps the Minister would like to suggest another way, possibly through regulations or guidelines to the asylum support directorate. We shall obviously be concerned if the Minister feels unable to provide any assurance of any kind about what will happen to someone dispersed some distance away from any reputable legal centre. There are indeed such places—I
  1072
  can think of several—where the only advice available was advice that I should not for one moment recommend anyone to take.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The effect of the acceptance of the Legal Aid Board's proposals would be that there would then be a definitive list of those people who were respectable and those who were not. That would go quite a long way towards getting rid of the fly-by-nights by whom no one would like advice to be given. With regard to the asylum support scheme to pay expenses incurred in connection with an asylum claim, which would include travel expenses to see a lawyer, I should imagine some guidelines would be set down and that the question of whether they would be provided would be dealt with there.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 84 [Interpretation of Part VI]:
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 154A:
  Page 54, line 11, leave out ("over") and insert ("not under").
  The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 155B and 155C. Amendment No. 154A arises from the decision which we have reached, which is the intention in Part VI that the Secretary of State should have power to provide support for destitute asylum seekers aged 18 and over. We reflected on the wording of Clause 84(1), and thought it better to amend it so that it is clear that eligibility begins on the day that an asylum seeker becomes 18, rather than the day after.
  Amendments Nos. 155B and 155C provide that asylum-seeking families with children being supported under the Secretary of State's scheme will continue to receive support for as long as they remain in the United Kingdom. As originally drafted, that concession was limited to the legal or biological offspring of either the principal asylum seeker or his spouse. That provision harks back to an example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, relating to whether one ought to be too restrictive about dependants. I said that we listened carefully to those thoughts. I believe that I can demonstrate that in these two amendments.
  In Clause 84 there is power to extend the definition of "dependant" for the purposes of Part VI. When the Bill was considered in another place, my honourable friend Mr O'Brien gave an undertaking that consideration would be given to amending the Bill so that the definition of "dependant" in Clause 84(1) would also apply to Clause 84(5). We have thought about that and, therefore, with the leave of the Committee, we shall amend Clause 84(5) to bring it in line with Clause 84(1). That is the purpose of the amendments. I hope the Committee will consider that this is an example of listening with care and improving the Bill. I beg to move.
  Lord Lyell: I wonder whether I may intervene. I have been silent so far on this matter. Has there been a

  1073
  problem with a young asylum seeker as his or her 18th birthday was "over" and "not under" 18? I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, explained the matter very well. Does this clear up a problem that has occurred? Is this part of general syntax or good grammar? I was interested in the way in which the noble Lord phrased his explanation to make it clear that it referred to an asylum seeker's 18th birthday. Has there been a problem with definition or is it a case of the noble Lord expressing matters with his customary clarity?
  9.15 p.m.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: There is no problem at the moment because Part IV, let alone any other part of the Bill, has not yet become law.
  One ought to have clarity in an area where there may be difficulty. We aim, on this occasion at least, to benefit an individual. Amendment No. 154A is not the most important in the group. I believe that Amendments Nos. 154B and 154C are more important.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: It is a great pleasure to thank the Minister for having listened to what my noble friend Lord Russell and I had to say on this matter. We are grateful to him and believe that the amendment clarifies what could have been a slightly grey area in the Bill. We thank the Minister for having taken notice.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Alton of Liverpool Lord Alton of Liverpool moved Amendment No. 155:
  Page 55, line 3, at end insert ("and shall in any event be extended—

  (i) in the event that either party indicates an intention to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal or Court of Session, or to bring judicial review proceedings in respect of an asylum claim or other aspect of an asylum seeker's immigration status, for a period reasonably long enough to enable him to do so, and

  (ii) for so long as any such proceedings, and any further appeal or proceedings arising from them, remain pending, and

  (iii) whether or not such proceedings are proposed or taken, for so long as the Secretary of State has under consideration further representations in respect of the claimant's immigration status, and

  (iv) whenever and for so long as the Secretary of State does not or is for any reason unable to effect the removal of an asylum seeker or his dependants, or both, following rejection of an asylum claim.").

  The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 155 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 155A in the mime of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby and Amendment No. 157 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley. I strongly support those amendments to which I am sure they will speak in due course.
  The purpose of Amendment No. 155 may best be summed up by saying that it prevents the support directorate from cutting off support to an asylum seeker after the Home Office has determined the application or when the appellate process before the IAT has been
  1074
  exhausted. To put it another way, it ensures that support is not prematurely terminated in circumstances in which it would be necessary for the power of the Secretary of State to support asylum seekers to be continued beyond the initial appeal stage. The amendment is also concerned with ensuring that destitution is not used as a weapon against a bona fide asylum seeker.
  The amendment falls into four parts. In a moment I shall explain what the four parts seek to do. First, I should like to put on record that the amendment has the support of the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, of the Asylum Rights Campaign and of the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture.
  The Earl of Dartmouth: Does it have the support of British taxpayers?
  Lord Alton of Liverpool: If the noble Earl had been able to contribute to earlier debates, he would have heard me say that I hope that noble Lords will not see all these issues through the prism of the interests of the, taxpayer. Sometimes we should also consider our interests and duties towards asylum seekers and refugees. Those questions have to be balanced one against another.
  In the debate on Second Reading I said that less than a quarter of 1 per cent of our entire national social security budget is allocated to all refugees and asylum seekers before we start to deal with anyone who may falsely be claiming expenses.
  I believe that we are disproportionate in the terms in which we raise the sort of intervention of the noble Earl. We would do better to concentrate on ensuring that there is justice for people who come from backgrounds of persecution, who may be dependants with children, who may be fleeing appalling regimes and who may have suffered grievously. We have a duty towards them.
  The Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture says:
  "It is wholly unacceptable that any class of people in this country should be left without food or shelter, or any means of obtaining these".
  To answer the intervention by the noble Earl, we are not talking about continued support for persons who over-stay and those who have gone to ground. I make that clear. The Minister of State in another place indicated that support may be available through the voluntary sector for some, although not for all, who have reached the end of the process. That is not an adequate or proper solution. It is no answer for the Minister to say, as he said to the Special Standing Committee, that,
  "If individuals want their case to be taken further, they will have to reflect on how they can support themselves. They could look to the voluntary sector or to their own communities for support".
  That is effectively another punishment that we are heaping upon the heads of people who have already suffered quite grievously. That punishment, once again, is entirely out of proportion to the mischief that it is supposed to address.
  I said that I would turn to the four parts of the amendment and shall try to do that briefly. Sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) in Amendment No. 155

  1075
  concern further proceedings which either the asylum seeker or the Secretary of State may have the right to bring with the leave of the court. Hunger and homelessness should not be used to block access to justice by asylum seekers who may have good grounds to go to higher courts or to apply for judicial review. The rule of law is nullified if access to justice is denied to the most vulnerable, especially if they are literally starved out of their legal rights by the other party to the legal proceedings in question—in this case, the Government.
  As matters stand, there is no power to extend support, even where it is the Secretary of State who seeks to challenge a favourable determination. So an applicant who has satisfied the appellate authorities that he merits recognition as a refugee must choose between the Charybdis and the Scylla—that is, between the country where he fears persecution, or remaining in destitution for however long it takes the Secretary of State to pursue higher court proceedings. That is self-evidently wrong. We should not put people in the position of choosing between that rock and a hard place.
  It is no less wrong, and equally a breach of the human rights convention, to impose destitution in an attempt to prevent asylum seekers taking up their legal rights to seek to challenge unfavourable determinations. That aspect of the present proposals is perhaps especially worrying in the light of the 81 per cent success rate in immigration cases where leave to move for judicial review was granted in 1996–97; but the principle will be the same whatever the statistics. It is not just a question of how many were successful. It should not be for the Government to establish a support scheme in such a way as to pre-empt such applications for political reasons, but for the courts to determine their legal merits. So sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) seek to establish that principle.
  Sub-paragraph (iii) concerns the Secretary of State's power to reconsider cases. It is wrong again to fetter the duty and discretion of the Secretary of State to consider an adjudicator's recommendations or further representations following a failed appeal by depriving him of the power to extend support while he does so. There may be changes in family or other circumstances, or non-asylum humanitarian considerations, into which the Secretary of State would wish to make further inquiry, but, as things stand, he may be effectively constrained from taking the necessary time to do so by the fact that the asylum seeker meanwhile has no means of even feeding himself.
  Finally, sub-paragraph (iv) concerns the various other circumstances in which unsuccessful asylum appellants may not be immediately removable from the United Kingdom. The asylum seeker may be in an advanced state of pregnancy, for instance, or otherwise unfit to travel; or there may be problems and delays in travel documentation; or the circumstances in the country of origin may be such that removal to that destination is, for the time being, literally impossible or may be dangerous. For example, for the past year or more, UNHCR has advised that failed asylum seekers cannot safely be returned to Angola, with the result that some
  1076
  failed Angolan asylum seekers have been on temporary admission for months, since the dismissal of their appeals, with support where necessary from their local authorities under the National Assistance Act and the Children Act.
  What will happen to families such as those unless we put this belt-and-braces provision into the legislation? What will happen to such people in the future if this part of the Bill is passed unamended? They would literally be thrown out of support scheme accommodation in whatever location they might have been dispersed to, with no other means to feed or house themselves. As,
  "persons subject to immigrations control",
  they would have no access to local authority assistance. What do the Government believe people in that predicament will do? They will beg; they will steal; they will sleep in the streets and do all the other things that we know form part of a begging-bowl culture. In fact, reverting to our earlier debate and the remarks the Minister of State made in relation to people in that position, the truth is that sometimes we force them into that position. Unless we amend the legislation, we will increase the number of people who sometimes intimidate in the way that the Minister of State described earlier.
  It would be inhuman and prohibitively expensive to detain individually all those who, through no fault of their own, cannot yet be removed. But unless this amendment is passed, the alternative is the creation of a roaming vagabond class of unknown size and with no incentive to maintain contact with the authorities whatsoever, save that for some a hot meal in a warm cell may actually be a lure to crime and preferable to the position in which they find themselves at that moment.
  In another place the Minister of State, Mr O'Brien, said that provision may be made for support through the voluntary sector. I have referred to the evidence that he gave to the House of Commons Special Standing Committee. That is not an adequate response. We shall return later in these proceedings on this part of the Bill to the role of the voluntary sector. But I know that there is deep resentment among many voluntary groups, community groups and Church-based charities which feel that they are being turned into an arm of the state and that they are being co-opted into a role which they have never asked to take on. Often that is done with paltry resources available to them. It is therefore inhumane and a breach of our obligations under the Human Rights Act that such food and shelter should not be approved. In those terms I commend Amendment No. 155 to the Committee. I beg to move.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: I believe it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I were to address all three amendments. They are very close to one another in the sense that all of them argue that support should be maintained until the end of the judicial process of appeal and review. That must be right. I was concerned at one stage that in an earlier draft of the Bill there was a suggestion that support would be removed when the process of appeal had been concluded short of judicial review. That cannot be right since an

  1077
  asylum seeker must have the ability to use the facility of the judicial review which is open to him. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, he should not be forced by economic stringencies and distress to abandon his obvious right to make an appeal through a judicial review if that is open to him.
  I add one other point. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, has set out in great detail the arguments for this amendment. My own experience of the British citizen is perhaps somewhat different from that of the noble Earl, Lord Dartmouth, in the sense that it has been the case over and over again that the British people have responded with extraordinary generosity when they have seen real need. Whether because of the hurricanes in Central America, the famine in Somalia or distress in Kosovo, time and time again the voluntary bodies and others have pointed to the astonishing level of response. I do not believe that most British citizens would wish to see those trying to get their rights within our judicial and legal process, of which we have every reason to be extremely proud, prevented from doing so by destitution.
  As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has pointed out, destitution would be the situation of those for whom there was no support of any kind from any source and who were not entitled to work in order to keep body and soul together. These amendments must be right if we believe in our own system of justice, the fairness of our courts and the right of everyone—"the poorest he among us", as the Levellers would have said—to receive that justice.
  I strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Alton. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, and I would fully accept whichever of these amendments appears to be the best drafted and covers the widest range of possibilities. We would rejoice to see that amendment accepted. But it would be quite wrong to end the support system when the right of an asylum seeker to continue to pursue his rights under our legal system was still open to him. I strongly support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and present my own.
  Earl Russell: The noble Earl, Lord Dartmouth, asked whether this amendment has the support of the British taxpayer. It certainly has the support of this one. The short answer is that the only way to find out would be to carry this amendment in the Lobbies and send it to another place to find out what it thinks about it. If the noble Earl is ready to co-operate in that endeavour I shall be happy to join him, although probably not tonight.
  However, the argument goes a little wider. It is the obligation of any British government—and the duty of any king or queen of England before that—to do justice. That obligation goes back to Magna Carta and to the Coronation Oath. We think that this amendment is part of that obligation; and that obligation is one to which the British taxpayer has consented. It is indeed the very essential reason why he has a government. There is no point in having a government if it does not do justice.
  1078
  But you cannot have selective justice. Justice, if it is to deserve the name at all, must be extended, in the biblical phrase, to,
  "the stranger that is within [our] gates".
  That has been recognised for a very long time and is the underlying purpose of this amendment.
  If something like this amendment is not accepted, there is a real danger of refugees being forced back to their own countries where they have been at risk of persecution. In fact, there is a real danger of constructive refoulement, contrary to Article 33 of the UN convention. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, seems to have a doubt on that point. But if people cannot live where they are, they tend to go somewhere else at whatever risk. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, suggested, it is an alternative that they may live in a disorderly way. The threat to public order has long been recognised by Ministers of the Crown as one of the most important reasons for supporting the destitute, including over the centuries a great many who have come from other countries. Most of us have ancestors who have come here from other countries at some stage in their lives in a state of destitution, often as victims of persecution, and who have enjoyed the hospitality of this country. I think that we should pass on the generosity from which our ancestors benefited.
  There is also a real risk of legal trouble if something of this sort is not done. I have spoken before about the potential conflict between the powers of statute and the principles of natural justice. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, indicated that he very much agreed with me that it is better for that not to be explored too thoroughly. I said that there were some things which one does not really want to find out, when dealing with the question of which of these has the superior authority. The noble and learned Lord nodded vigorously. I agree with him.
  This Bill, seen from the perspective of the courts, might seem like an attempt to interfere with justice. I do not want the supremacy of statute or natural justice to have to be argued out; but we should not lead Her Majesty's judges into temptation. If this Bill is not amended, I think that Her Majesty's judges will be led into temptation. It is not for me to say whether or not they will resist it, but it is a risk that I do not think we ought to take. We ought not to interfere with the course of justice, as will be done if people are deprived of support while they have perfectly valid outstanding claims to a hearing. That is my central reason for supporting this group of amendments.
  9.30 p.m.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: Amendment No. 157 stands in my name and that of my noble friend, as well that of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. It is a different drafting of a similar point to that expressed in Amendment No. 155 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. I prefer the drafting of our amendment and, until I have heard the Minister's response, I have no reason to change my mind as regards the detailed differences between the two formulations.

  1079
  There is a point of principle behind what is proposed, but there is also an extremely practical point as to when the support will stop during the legal process. With due respect to the noble Earl, it is not a point which can be decided solely on the basis of our traditions in this country. Nevertheless, I sympathise with a great deal of what the noble Earl said.
  However, the situation has changed in recent years. The world has become smaller and there are more economic migrants. As was said in our earlier debates, many of us would seek to be economic migrants if we did not have the good fortune to live in this or a comparable country. Nevertheless we have to distinguish between economic migrants and the genuine seekers of asylum who deserve it and whom we all wish to assist.
  As I say, I have no particular pride as between the two formulations that are proposed. However, a real point of principle and also a highly practical point lies behind both of them.
  The Earl of Dartmouth: As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, pointed out, I have not attended the many days of discussion on this Bill. However, I feel flattered that a mere nine-word intervention from me should inspire paragraphs of the words of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and an entire speech from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, to be printed in Hansard. I am a tremendous admirer of the speaking abilities of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I always enjoy his speeches. Therefore I feel even more flattered that a nine-word intervention from me should inspire an entire speech from him.
  However, there is a serious point here. I asked whether the measure had the support of the British taxpayer. I infer from the lengthy address of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the eloquent speech of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that the short answer to that is "no". Although I have attended few of the proceedings during the passage of the Bill through this Chamber I was present when the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, introduced this Bill with his customary eloquence. However, he seemed to me to imply that he rather disagreed with that introduction. I do not have his words in front of me but he mentioned a large number of statistics which appear to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt to an objective person that there are a large number of bogus asylum seekers who have come here in order to live off the British taxpayer. That is what the statistics demonstrate.
  Bogus asylum seekers abuse our hospitality and exploit our humanitarian feelings. That goes against the grain of British generosity and fair play which the noble Baroness so rightly mentioned. Many people have participated in debates on this Bill during its passage through the Chamber but it seems to me that the interests of the taxpayer have been under-represented.
  I wish to make a point of detail on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alton. I am not picking on him; it is just the way "the cards break". There is a logical fallacy at the heart of what he said. He said that 81 per cent of immigration applications are granted by judicial
  1080
  review after leave to appeal has been granted. One has to make a separate application to get leave to appeal. The leave to appeal is a screening process. One would expect that to be the case. The amendment states,
  "in the event that either party indicates an intention to apply for leave to appeal".
  Therefore, however weak their case, they can string out the legal process and live off the British taxpayer.
  As I heard the Minister introduce the Bill—that seems many months ago—it seemed to me that the Bill's intention was to rebalance the application of the law as between asylum seékers and the taxpayer. The Government's unexpected interest in the welfare of the taxpayer is very welcome. I urge the Government Front Bench to stand firm against these and other self-interested and unobjective amendments.
  Lord Hylton: The intervention of the noble Earl, Lord Dartmouth, has reinforced the point I have tried to make on previous occasions. We are seeking the highest quality of decision at the first instance when a case is tested. If that can be achieved, it will bring with it considerable savings, not only in legal appeals and tribunal costs but also in social security support.
  Earl Russell: May I ask the noble Earl to withdraw the word "self-interested"?
  The Earl of Dartmouth: Of course; I do not have the noble Earl's felicity of phrase. I shall write to him when I have had a long time to think about it and have come up with a better and more accurate word.
  Lord Dholakia: I do not want go down the same road as the noble Earl, Lord Dartmouth. There are no ways in which we in this House can gauge the effect on taxpayers of what we do unless we promote a referendum of some kind on these matters. I remind the noble Earl that it was a Conservative government who undertook the obligation of admitting 28,000 Ugandan Asians to this country. They did not ask for a referendum; they did not ask the taxpayer; it was an act of compassion.
  The Earl of Dartmouth: I must answer the noble Lord's point. The Ugandan Asians were genuine asylum seekers; we are talking here about bogus asylum seekers. That is the concern of people in this country. If the noble Lord had stood in an election recently he would know that.
  Lord Dholakia: We are not talking about bogus asylum seekers; we are talking about genuine asylum seekers who are being persecuted, who need help, and who have come to this country for help. Those are the people we are talking about. The entire Bill is about how to help genuine asylum seekers to this country. My comments applied not only to the Ugandan Asians but also to the Vietnamese refugees, to people from Kosovo, as was mentioned, and to Hong Kong citizens, as my noble friend has just reminded me.

  1081
  But let us not be diverted by that red herring. The Government indicated in the Commons that consideration would be given to making funds available to organisations which support asylum seekers who are granted leave to seek judicial review. Obviously, that is a welcome sign. However—perhaps the Minister can help me—the Legal Aid Board's recommendation to the Lord Chancellor suggests that legal aid will be available for applications for leave for judicial review, subject to strict merit and means tests. In cases where leave has been granted, legal aid should generally follow the eligible clients as a matter of course. Only those quality approved organisations with a contract will be able to apply for legal aid to seek leave. It is therefore unclear why asylum seekers who have been granted legal aid to apply for leave for judicial review should be denied subsistence support.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, this is an important issue. Let me make a preliminary point. Although one of the amendments refers to "dependent children", all of these amendments would affect only asylum seekers without dependent children. Under the provisions of subsection (5) of Clause 84, those asylum seekers who have dependent children will remain entitled to assistance under Part VI for as long as they remain in this country, even where their claims for asylum have been finally determined. So in this range of amendments, we are talking only about adults without dependants.
  There are various gradations in the amendments. The most extreme—I do not put that in any pejorative way— is the one that says that support should be provided until the asylum seeker is removed from this country, irrespective of whether any kind of proceedings are continued and irrespective of whether the asylum seeker deliberately seeks to evade removal. The proposals then go down in gradations, seeking to cover various kinds of legal proceedings.
  Perhaps I may briefly set out the policy. Under Clause 84, by the time an asylum seeker ceases to be eligible for support, he will have had his claim for asylum considered, first, by the Home Secretary. Assuming that that claim has been rejected, he will have had the opportunity to appeal to the immigration adjudicator, who is independent of the Home Secretary. If that has proved unsuccessful his case may be taken to the immigration appeals tribunal. And if that is unsuccessful, he may also take it to the Court of Appeal. I should say in parenthesis that some of the amendments refer to support being extended pending a hearing in the Court of Appeal. Support would continue in any event, whether there is an application to the Court of Appeal in respect of an appeal from the immigration appeals tribunal.
  We are talking about a situation where an adult asylum seeker with no dependants has potentially had his claim heard by four separate executive bodies or independent tribunals: the Home Secretary; the appeals adjudicator; the immigration appeals tribunal; and the Court of Appeal. That is a fair and extensive judicial process for the consideration of a claim.
  1082
  There may be a small number of cases where there is scope for further examination of the case by the court. I should add that no more than a quarter of applications for judicial review, which is one route that can be followed instead of the process to which I have referred, actually result in the granting of leave. However, I should make it clear that the Government recognise that there is a role for such a challenge. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, rightly pointed out, some of these challenges do succeed. They most often succeed not on the basis of the merits of the claim, but on the basis that there should be some reconsideration by one or other of the bodies to which I have referred.
  We recognise the validity of this limited role for further challenge by making available funds to the voluntary sector to provide further support for hard cases who are still pursuing such applications. Indeed, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, might be a means of indicating which are such cases; for example, cases where leave has been granted, or cases where legal aid has been granted because the Legal Aid Board takes the view that there is merit in the application, although ultimately it must be a matter for the voluntary sector as to where it believes its money should be spent. I should make it clear that the power to give grants to the voluntary sector in what is now Clause 102 was extended in another place to cover support of former asylum seekers precisely to cater for such circumstances.
  The concern of the noble Lord and the noble Baroness is to protect former asylum seekers who are seeking further recourse to the courts. The proposal would cover people who are continuing to make representations of any sort, and often without any merit. It would also extend to people whom the Secretary of State has simply not been able to remove for any reason. I remind the Committee that in many cases, sadly, the failure to remove someone reflects that person's lack of co-operation in the removal process.
  It is a sad fact that about two-thirds of all applications for asylum are eventually found to be without merit. Some of those are applications by people who believe themselves to have a real claim for protection that ought to meet the criteria of the 1951 convention. Others are made by people who have reached this country in order to benefit from the better life that is available here without having any real expectation that a claim for asylum would be met.
  To allow everyone who has made an application for asylum an entitlement to support for as long as they remain in this country—which is what the amendment would in effect do—would encourage such people to prolong their claims for as long as possible and by whatever means or representations they could make. It would encourage them not to co-operate in the removal process. The sums we are making available for the support of meritorious asylum claims is considerable. We do not wish to devote yet further resources to supporting former asylum seekers whose claims have proved to be without merit. In substance, we have made available a long, comprehensive and fair judicial system of dealing with these claims.

  1083
  With great respect to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, he overstates the case dramatically and unfairly when he suggests that this is a matter where justice would not be done. He also suggests that the judges would be "tempted" to put natural justice before statute. Involuntary movements of my head on a previous occasion should not be taken in any way to indicate assent to any proposition that Parliament is not sovereign. The courts will always strive to ensure that the statutes are construed in accordance with natural justice. But there is no principle in this country that natural justice can overturn statutes. That appears to be what the noble Earl suggested.
  The procedure laid down by the Bill, giving substantial rights of appeal and ensuring that there is money for the voluntary sector to deal with the hard case, is a well thought-out process. On the one hand, it makes sure that people can pursue their rights sensibly but, on the other, it does not provide a system where there is encouragement to people to apply again and again for leave to apply for judicial review or to make representation after representation to the Home Secretary to ensure that their support continues.
  That is the effect of all the amendments put down by noble Lords. In all of them, the simple act of making an application for leave to apply for judicial review, or further representations to the Home Secretary, prolongs the right to assistance. I do not believe that the balance would be right.
  The noble Baroness shakes her head, but that is the effect of the amendment as drafted.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: The noble Baroness is involuntarily shaking her head and the Minister should not read anything into it. I wish to draw his attention to one aspect of Amendment No. 155A. The phrase used is:
  "and such period shall in any event be extended in the event that either party has been granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal or Court of Session, or leave to move for judicial review".
  The amendment restricts itself to those who have received such leave. That is not because they are continually pressing illegitimately a demand for appeal, but because a court has decided that there are sufficient grounds to grant that leave. It would rule out a great many of the cases to which the Minister referred. It would place on all fours a right that the court recognised that the appellant had and that should be sustained by offering the appellant sufficient support to enable him to survive until the court has completed its considerations. That is what I understand by justice being seen to be done.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: In so far as the application to the Court of Appeal arises as an appeal from the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, support will continue in any event. I do not wish to take a drafting point, although I can hardly resist it. The effect of the last three lines of the amendment is that if there are any proceedings pending it would include a further application for leave and then support continues.
  1084
  Let us ignore that and take the noble Baroness's point that all we are dealing with is a case where leave has been granted for judicial review. The way it should be dealt with is by the voluntary sector providing support in hardship cases. That can be an emblem to them of when they should provide support.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: That is the weakness of the Minister's argument. We all accept that there are hardship cases that fall outside the process of review. Those properly fall to the voluntary sector. I find it difficult, even impossible, to accept that while a court has granted judicial review to an asylum seeker—and in some parts of the Bill judicial review is recognised as being the acceptable route—the Immigration Appeal Tribunal is not open to the asylum seeker though there are parts of the Bill of which that is true. It also covers convention appeals. In those instances it is incumbent on any government to provide adequate support to enable the appellant to be sustained while he completes his legal rights. He cannot misuse them because he is dependent on the court giving him leave to make that further step.
  Earl Russell: Before we go any further I should like to clear my name from the suggestion that I was arguing that the principles of natural justice overrode statute. I may have inadvertently misled the House because I took trouble not to repeat myself. It seems that I was mistaken. I think that I dealt with the point on Clause 9. The principle on which I was relying was that stated by the Master of the Rolls in R v. Home Secretary ex parte Fayed. If Parliament wishes to confer a power to act unfairly it must say so in express words. That respects parliamentary sovereignty, and it was and is my position.
  The Home Office's record in predicting the results of judicial reviews should not inspire us with confidence on whether that will interfere with the course of justice. One cannot know what the result of a case will be before the case is over. One may often vehemently suspect that there will be a particular result, but favourites do not always win, as all bookies know. It is not possible to tell the result of a case without hearing it. The deprivation of support may prevent a hearing and may therefore deny justice. It is argued that we cannot give such people support because it only encourages them. We have all been careful to moderate our language, but I cannot find that acceptable.
  The Lord Bishop of Southwark: The Minister has said several times that the Government intend to grant funds to the voluntary sector for the hard cases that have been discussed. Have the voluntary organisations been consulted on that and have they given their consent to be involved in that way?
  The Earl of Dartmouth: I do not know whether I am out of order, but I want to point out that, despite my earlier remarks, I was struck by the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. If leave for appeal has been granted, a large proportion of the argument that I put forward earlier falls away and there

  1085
  is a reasonable case for support, which the Government should at least consider. It will be interesting to hear the Minister respond to that thought.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The persuasive powers of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, are unrivalled to have secured the agreement of the noble Earl, Lord Dartmouth. It is an unholy alliance, if I may say so.
  The noble Baroness has moderated her position. She appears to have accepted that it would be right for the voluntary sector to support certain hard cases. Her argument appears to be that when leave to apply for judicial review has been granted, it is not appropriate for the voluntary sector to be involved, but there should be a right to continuing support.
  That is one moderately small category of case, although the amendments are wide-ranging. Even in those cases—which will also be hard cases, but the easiest ones for the voluntary sector to identify—there should not be a right to support. The Government should make such support available indirectly through the voluntary sector.
  We have consulted the voluntary sector on the right reverend Prelate's request and we are in continuing discussions on the issue.
  10 p.m.
  Lord Alton of Liverpool: In response to some of the points made by the Minister, I should like to draw his attention to correspondence I have received from two groups I met here, along with other noble Lords. They are from the voluntary sector, and it may well be that the Government are still in discussion with them. I hope that the Government will take note of the kind of comments made by the Brentwood Diocesan Commission for Justice & Peace in a letter to me following last week's meeting. It states:
  "For many years, the voluntary organisations and faith groups have provided a much-needed safety net for asylum seekers, especially the destitute, and particularly since the Immigration and Asylum Act 1996. The work of this sector is recognised and valued by the Home Office to such an extent that it is now proposed, under the new Bill, to co-opt these organisations directly into the administration of official support arrangements for asylum seekers, and to provide funding for the work undertaken.
  This creates a moral dilemma for the voluntary sector. Care of the destitute, and alleviation of their plight, is the main objective of much of the work of the organisations involved and in particular of faith groups. Now they are being asked to administer a system that is inherently biased against the interests of many asylum seekers, and which will operate under very strict guidelines. Co-opted agencies will not be permitted, for example, to assist asylum seekers who fall outside the proposed support arrangements and for whom the future will be bleak".
  I will not quote at length from a second letter from the Notre Dame Refugee Centre in London. This letter was sent to the Minister of State and is dated 15th July. The letter states:
  "As the director of just such a group, connected with the French Catholic Church of Notre Dame de France, I wish to express the dilemma we face in regard to the new measures proposed".
  The voluntary organisations, the Churches and the charities which came to the House for a meeting last week in the Moses Room expressed concerns about the
  1086
  way this is being carried out. For that reason, I hope that when the Minister reflects on the debate he will weigh those questions carefully.
  I welcome what he had to say about exemptions, and I am grateful for that. However, it raises an interesting point about the anomalies in the Bill. I am glad that we are showing compassion to families with dependants, who will continue to receive support. But why is it that someone, simply because he does not have dependants, will not have the same access to the judicial system? Is not that in itself discriminatory, and does that not put yet another anomaly into the system? We should be even-handed in this matter.
  I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Dartmouth, for his subsequent intervention in the debate. I hope that he will continue to play an active part in our proceedings and will make further interventions like the second one he made. However, I am always arrested in my tracks when people talk of immigrants and asylum seekers as those who want only to take out of the system. In different terms, the Minister spoke of two-thirds coming here without merit. Those people are economic migrants who want to come here for a better life.
  Like the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, who has spoken in these terms in other debates, I remember my own family history. That makes me feel that you should do to others as you would wish to be done by others. In my case, my mother came here at the end of the war as an immigrant. Her parents had died of meningitis and she left a large family in the west of Ireland. If it had not been for the generosity she was shown when she arrived here, I do not know what would have happened to her. Was she an economic migrant? Was she someone who would have been one of the two-thirds without merit? I do not know. However, I do know that many people who have arrived here for various reasons have made a significant contribution and have put a thousandfold back into the life of our nation.
  The noble Earl, Lord Russell, reminded us of our duties since Magna Carta. He also reminded us of our own Judaeo-Christian tradition of treating the alien in the land as you would wish to be treated yourself. It is written in the discourses on the Decalogue, where Jews, Moslems and Christians look to that system of values. We should always treat the alien in the land with justice.
  The other side of the coin of justice is the word "mercy". If there is something missing in our debates thus far, I believe that it has been inadequate reference to the word "mercy". People who find themselves in the desperate circumstances described by noble Lords in speaking to these amendments should not only be treated justly but also mercifully. We have had a useful airing of the issues, and we may well wish to return to them at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 155A not moved.]
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 155B:
  Page 55, line 6, leave out ("of his, or of his spouse,").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 155C:
  Page 55, line 7, leave out ("dependent on him") and insert ("a dependant of his").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 84, as amended, agreed to.
  The Lord Bishop of Ripon The Lord Bishop of Ripon moved Amendment No. 156:
  After Clause 84, insert the following new clause—

  ELIGIBILITY FOR SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS WHILST AWAITING ASYLUM DECISIONS
  (" . An asylum-seeker, and his dependants if any, shall be eligible for any social security benefits to which they would have been entitled if neither Part VI of this Act nor Schedule 1 to the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 had been in force, until such time as the Secretary of State has placed a report in the Library of the House of Commons giving details of the average process times in the determination of—

  (a) initial asylum decisions; and

  (b) appeals to adjudicators against initial asylum decisions,

  and certifying that the average time from the lodging of an application for asylum to the determination of an adjudicator of the appeal against the initial asylum decision is less than six months.").
  The right reverend Prelate said: This amendment has an obvious and clear purpose. It proposes that the voucher system will not be triggered until the Government's target of six months for initial application and appeal is met and certified by the Secretary of State by means of a report placed in the Library of the House of Commons. We owe a debt to the parliamentary adviser to the Refugee Council, Mike Kaye—I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Alton—who has provided a good deal of explanation to many of us. However, this amendment is tabled with the support of the Immigration Law Practitioners Association and the Asylum Rights Campaign.
  The Government have already indicated that they would trigger the voucher system for families with children only when the target is met. This amendment extends that trigger to all families and single people. In support of the amendment I put forward four arguments. First, under the Government's proposal that the trigger should extend only to families with children, there is a great danger that their applications will be processed quickly while all others will be left on the slower track. That has happened in similar circumstances in the past. For example, under the 1993 Act all new applicants were processed quickly but those already in the system were left to languish for an average of six and a half years for initial decision. Although I do not suggest for a moment that that will apply in the present case, there is necessarily a strong possibility of a slower track for those without children. Under present arrangements, they will be on the voucher system for the whole of the waiting period.
  Secondly, there is a stigma attached to vouchers. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, has already spoken to this matter, to which we shall return later in Committee.
  My third, and perhaps strongest, argument relates to cost. The cost of the asylum support directorate will be considerable. The additional cost of the voucher system is substantial. To what purpose? The Government may well argue that it is to keep out economic migrants who want to take advantage of our benefits system. There is no evidence that the changes which have already been made have affected the number of asylum seekers. The Government believe that the drop in asylum applications during 1996 was the consequence of the removal of benefits from in-country applicants, but the drop in asylum applicants began three months before the benefits were withdrawn. There was no last-minute rush to get in. The fact that 1995 saw the second highest number of asylum seekers ever received in the United Kingdom made it highly likely that the figure would drop in 1996.
  Moreover, the pattern of applications has not changed. In-country applications still represented some 49 per cent of all applications made in 1997 and 1998, despite the fact that in-country applicants did not have access to benefits. If benefits in cash were an incentive, port applications would be expected to increase. There would also be an expectation of an increase in asylum applications in Scotland where cash benefits continue for all applicants, including in-country applicants.
  Is it not likely that most asylum seekers are unaware of the complexities of the scheme which is hard enough for some of us to grasp even when we are not under pressure and have the benefit of considerable advice and support? For what purpose is the asylum support directorate being established? I realise that its purpose is wider than simply the administration of the voucher scheme. It will manage dispersal as well as support. But if it does not keep asylum seekers out, what does it do? Does it reassure the natives? That is us. If that is the purpose, the comment of the noble Earl, Lord Dartmouth, is relevant here. Do we wish to bear the cost of such reassurance? It seems to me that the interests of asylum seekers and taxpayers coincide at this point.
  Is there not a much better use for many of the resources that are being put into the asylum support directorate? Could they be used by the asylum directorate? I find this language very confusing. I understand that the asylum directorate is that part of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate which deals with asylum applications. But it is confusing to have a term so similar to "asylum support directorate". I hope that I have indicated their responsibilities in the correct way.
  The asylum directorate is concerned in the making of initial determinations. Surely support put towards it would meet the earlier point of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that good initial determinations are a key to reducing the backlog, and to ensuring that the later stages of the process referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, are not invoked.
  The Public and Commercial Services Union, which represents about 2,000 of the Home Office officials in the IND, has estimated that the switch of resources from

  1089
  the asylum support directorate to the asylum directorate would enable an additional 51,000 initial determinations a year to be made. That is a huge number and would begin to make credible the government claims that that will reduce the period of initial determination and appeal to six months in all cases; or at least to an average of six months. At the moment, it is difficult to believe that those targets will be achieved. The backlog of applications awaiting initial determination rose by 13,000 in 1998, and by a further 13,515 in the first five months of 1999. The backlog of initial determinations has risen every month from March 1998, when it was 50,590, to May 1999, when it was 78,285—an increase of almost 30,000.
  In its evidence to the Special Standing Committee, the Public and Commercial Services Union has described the proposed targets of the Government as wholly unrealistic. It estimates that there will still be a backlog of nearly 50,000 initial applications by April 2001. That is the date by which the Government hope to clear the backlog. In the face of that evidence, on what further evidence do the Government claim that their figure is achievable?
  The point is important because the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, argued that the new support system is fair if it is applied for only a short period. In Hansard of 29th June 1999 at col. 251 he said:
  "I do not pretend that that is a wealth untold, but it is not unreasonable … if we can deliver on the two-month and four-month targets".
  Is not the corollary that it is unreasonable if the Government cannot deliver on those targets? I suggest that the evidence points to the possible, indeed probable, failure to do so.
  I return to my original argument. The costs of the asylum support directorate could be very considerably used to enable the Government to deliver on these targets by reallocating at least some of the resources to the IND for use within the asylum directorate for making initial determinations. The case seems overwhelming, especially as it is likely to get the Government out of a very considerable difficulty. The Home Office Minister in the other place, Mr Mike O'Brien, recognised that,
  "increasing the speed at which decisions are taken is a key to resolving problems in the asylum system. That is the best deterrent and the best way of resolving the appalling shambles that is our current system".—[Official Report, Commons, 18/5/99; col. 1599.]
  Provided that that is done with a proper attention to good initial decisions resulting in fewer appeals, we should all say "amen" to that.
  The amendment would not do away with vouchers, but it would considerably reduce the responsibilities of the asylum support directorate, which the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, has already claimed will be greatly under-resourced for the responsibilities that it will have to undertake. Instead of the directorate being invited to perpetuate a system that is inefficient and that will do nothing to achieve the Government's objectives, the amendment will reduce its responsibilities and enable some of the resources to be used more efficiently
  1090
  and effectively to decrease the backlog. A smaller bureaucracy will be all that is necessary to deal with the situation that will then pertain.
  I recognise that my argument builds largely on the claim that the resources directed to the asylum support directorate could be directed elsewhere and that that might be considered slightly wide of an argument for the amendment as it stands. I wish to end my remarks with an argument that is directed precisely to the amendment. Before doing so, I shall summarise my first three arguments, which are the dangers of the two-track system—one for families with children and one for families without—the stigma attached to vouchers and the cost of the asylum support directorate.
  I suggest a fourth argument. If the Government are confident of meeting their targets, what is their difficulty in accepting the amendment? By doing so, they would be expressing their confidence in their judgment that the targets will be reached, so triggering the reduction of benefits. On the other hand, if the Government resist the amendment, they will clearly signal that they do not have confidence in their ability to reach the targets. Let the Government clearly send the opposite signal that they believe the targets will be met and the new support system will come into being. Let them avoid the situation that will pertain if they fail and, if this amendment is not accepted, the result that large numbers of asylum seekers will be left on a system that will provide them with support that—by implication from the words of the Minister in the other place—will be unreasonable for the long period that they will have to survive before their applications will be heard. I beg to move.
  Earl Russell: Some weeks ago I was approached by members of the Rationalist Press Association. They asked me to subscribe to a press release arguing that a reformed House should not include any Bishops. To their utter dismay, I refused point blank to do any such thing. We have heard tonight some of the reasons why I did so. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon has brought to our debates on the subject not only a wealth of pastoral experience but a philosophical position that, because it is oblique to those normally held by politicians, has immeasurably enriched our debates on this subject. We are privileged to have him here and I was delighted to listen to him.
  On the matter of the amendment, I am reminded of an occasion when I was new in my lecturing job. The college maintained that it could only manage to pay us once every two months, because it was far too difficult to do anything else. A senior professor who was expert in accountancy was allowed to examine the books. He came back rubbing his hands in glee, saying that he had heard that there was once such a system of accounting but he had never thought to be privileged to see it in operation.
  That is very much the way I feel when I look at paragraph 8.19 of the White Paper. It indicates that the Government are committed to providing such a safety net, but they are determined to do so in a way which minimises the incentive for abuse by those who do not really need the support or who would make an

  1091
  unfounded asylum application in order to obtain the provision. That is the myth of our exceptionally generous benefits system. That myth is etched into our national consciousness, but it is about as out of date as the belief that Britannia rules the waves.
  A little over 24 hours ago, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford was in the Chamber and spoke extremely powerfully in a debate on an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, about the inadequacy of our benefit levels. He and I were among many speakers in every quarter of the Chamber who supported the proposition of the Acheson Report, itself a reputable enough source, that our benefit levels are now too low to sustain good health. If we look at them in a comparative dimension, they are on the low side of the EU benefits. I understand that Eurostat figures create technical problems with which I shall not detain the House, but whichever way we look at it we are somewhere in the bottom half of the EU as regards generosity of benefit levels. According to methods of calculation, we come probably somewhere between ninth and twelfth; either just above or just below Ireland, depending on the method of calculation chosen.
  If benefits are acting as an incentive to draw people to one country in the West rather than another, one would expect the flow of applicants to this country to be rapidly diminishing because our levels of benefit are not among those which are particularly generous. I have previously given reasons for doubting how much they know in the back streets of Jaffna about British benefit levels. But if they do know, it is not working. If they do not know, it never will work. In any case, it gives me some apprehension to think of conducting a Dutch auction between the prosperous countries of the world as to which can lower their benefit levels fastest in order to make themselves least attractive to asylum seekers. If it is a Dutch auction, we are near enough to winning it not to need to put in a bid to undercut ourselves!
  In the case of China, we have some interesting evidence about how far benefit levels attract or deter. Before the benefit changes, 71 per cent of Chinese asylum applications were at ports. In 1997–98, when only port applicants received benefits, those figures had dropped to 26 per cent and 25 per cent. Clearly, these people are not acting as a classic free-market economic man either because the need to live is more important than the level of benefits or, more likely, because they do not know the information.
  Whether it is really a good idea to deter and make less attractive when we are already in the bottom half and people do not know what is happening anyway is a difficult issue. The level of benefits is low enough already, but it appears to me that what is being offered here, whatever the Government may say against it, is lower than the benefit level that is available to other people.
  The Government make several points about utensils and so forth, but there is a vital principle involved in the possession of cash; namely, choice. If you are supplied with all your own equipment, as I am sure all
  1092
  those who have rented holiday villas have discovered occasionally the hard way, what is provided is not actually what you need.
  Let us take the case of the Chinese asylum seekers to whom I referred just now. How many of them will move into social housing in Newcastle or Salford and find that they have been provided with a wok? I would guess not very many. That sort of problem will be repeated over and over again. Utility costs are quoted, but the percentage of a budget which goes on utility costs varies quite sharply from household to household. The calculation of a standard amount will be wrong in a great many cases.
  It is argued that we can have a lower level of benefit because there will be no need to replace items. As the right reverend Prelate touched on, that is true only if the Government genuinely achieve their targets and people are on benefit vouchers in the short term. But in fact, even in the short term, it will not be true anyway. We know that many people who came out of Kosovo came carrying only what they could grab in a few seconds as they turned to run. For those people, replacement costs will be an extremely high proportion of their budget. There is no allowance in the vouchers for any equivalent of access to the Social Fund. That alone would make the figures very far from reliable.
  On the first amendment on this part, the Minister said that we must take account of costs. I agree with him. I have often said so in this Chamber. But one of the objections to the Government's proposals is that, considering the cost of administration, the costs of the Government's proposals are actually higher than those of using an existing benefits system which has a well-established administration to run it. The Government are spending more in order to give less. In my book, that is not good value for money. When one considers cost, I believe that that is an argument for deferring what the Government are doing.
  The Minister also said that we should take equal account of those who are destitute in our own country, and that we should not attempt a higher standard of provision than we give to them. I believe that that was roughly the purport of his argument. If he said anything like that—it is my recollection that he did so—
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I said quite clearly that when discussing the level of different sorts of benefits to be given to those who come from other countries, it must be in the general context of what we provide for our own. I am happy to repeat that.
  Earl Russell: I entirely accept that proposition. It is to that proposition that I was arguing yesterday. I believe that that provision is itself inadequate. Our provision for asylum seekers should not be more inadequate than that. However, I believe that the Government's current proposals are indeed thus. I take the point already made by the Minister that in this case we are dealing with single people, not with families with children. The concession made on children today is one which I welcome very warmly indeed.

  1093
  But single people have rights too. The tendency to assume that single people cannot be in hardship is one that I increasingly deplore. Of course one must care for children. But if you are single and your stomach is empty, it hurts just as much.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: I put my name down to the amendment, but with all my characteristic ingenuity, I can think of nothing to add to the speech made by the right reverend Prelate or to that of the noble Earl opposite. Therefore, I do not wish to say anything more.
  Lord Alton of Liverpool: I fear that clapping will break out sharply throughout the Chamber. I should like to add a few words in support of the right reverend Prelate's amendment. I echo the remarks by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in paying tribute to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon. Many of us know that he will shortly be retiring from the House and indeed will not be here for the Report stage of the Bill.
  I believe that we shall be the poorer as a result of that. I also believe that asylum seekers and refugees, who have benefited so much over the years from contributions made on their behalf, will be the poorer as well. We hope that there will be many more platforms on which to advance their cause in the future.
  In opening the debate the right reverend Prelate referred to the stigmatising effect of vouchers. I was struck by some remarks made to me by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, hardly a radical organisation trying to drag down the Government. That organisation took a long look at the voucher system.
  10.30 p.m.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am not sure why the noble Lord is talking about the merits or demerits of vouchers rather than the merits or demerits of the amendment.
  Lord Alton of Liverpool: I shall refer to their relevance to the amendment in due course, if the Minister will forbear. The right reverend Prelate, in introducing the amendment, referred to vouchers. That was not commented on by the Minister. As this amendment deals with eligibility for social security benefits while awaiting asylum decisions, and the new system will incorporate vouchers into that limited system, it seems perfectly relevant and in order to refer to them. A few moments ago, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, described at some length the disadvantageous effects of the voucher system. I shall simply add a few remarks of my own.
  The CAB has stated:
  "the voucher system will inevitably lead to social exclusion and discrimination … A system which requires asylum seekers to identify themselves as such whenever they visit the supermarket can only foster these regrettable features of our society".
  That may make for unpalatable listening; nevertheless, it is a fact that if people have to produce vouchers in supermarkets when living—if other parts of this legislation are enacted—in dispersed areas, sometimes on sink estates or in areas where there may be
  1094
  considerable deprivation already, they can easily become targets for racism and vicious assaults by people who would resent their presence. Therefore, they will be stigmatised and singled out.
  The issue of value for money was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I agree with him. I want to draw the attention of the Committee to the evidence given to the Special Standing Committee by Kent Social Services that the voucher system was,
  "the difference between 4p and 14p in the pound".
  That means that the voucher system is three and a half times more expensive than benefits. So where is the value for money? Where is the benefit to the taxpayers about which we have heard so much this evening?
  I also want to support the remarks made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about the level of these entitlements that will be made available to people in the United Kingdom in future. In a comparison with our European neighbours, we do not appear very high in the league table. Although Germany receives twice as many asylum applications as we do, it provides £38.63p a week compared with our £27.90p a week, of which only £10 a week is paid in cash. Switzerland and the Netherlands, which take about the same number of asylum seekers as we do, provide £41.07p and £46.58p respectively. Therefore, it is clear that we are not over-generous in our provision for asylum seekers, as the amendment standing in the name of the right reverend Prelate recognises.
  The voucher system has been tried and found wanting in other countries. In the early 1990s, Switzerland, for example, operated a system that allowed refugees to be given vouchers, but it was found to be administratively cumbersome. The agency that co-ordinates the work of refugees in Switzerland, the OSAR, was not aware, when asked, of any district still using the voucher system. The system has been abandoned because it was demeaning for asylum seekers and impractical to operate.
  For all those reasons, I feel that the system that the Bill introduces will fail, that it is ineffective, and that it will stigmatise. For the reasons advanced by the right reverend Prelate, I hope that noble Lords will support the alternative that he has offered.
  Lord Warner: This amendment contains a major flaw. The speeches seemed to be an attempt to re-open the whole issue as to whether or not the asylum support directorate should be established to run a more comprehensive and integrated system of providing support, including accommodation, to asylum seekers. This does not seem to me to be the place to conduct that debate.
  The fundamental problem with Amendment No. 156 is that, if passed, it would effectively require the Government, and the Home Secretary in particular, to organise two systems of support for asylum seekers alongside each other. It would not change the requirement to continue with establishing and putting in place the asylum support directorate and all that goes with it. But it would require the Government to put in place, through the Benefits Agency, arrangements for

  1095
  social security benefits to be paid to asylum seekers in this narrow group of circumstances. That puts further costs on the Government and a further set of arrangements which are unnecessary. I suggest therefore that we do not support the amendment.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I shall limit myself, as was agreed earlier, to the amendment.
  This clause is trying to focus on the commitment to reduce the time taken to reach an initial decision. I repeat what my right honourable friend Jack Straw said on Report in the other place. He confirmed that asylum seeker families with minor children would not be taken into the new support system at 1st April 2000 unless he was satisfied that the target of two months for a decision time in those cases could be achieved.
  I recognise that that may mean, at the outset of the new support arrangements, that the average waiting time and hence the average time spent on the new support scheme may be a little longer. But continuing with the current support arrangements, as my noble friend Lord Warner indicated a moment ago, is unsustainable. Asylum seekers will receive a fairer deal under the new support arrangements, which is why we want to give effect to them as soon as possible. I cannot agree therefore that it is appropriate to delay the commencement of Part VI in the way suggested.
  I am sorry that the right reverend Prelate is to leave us soon. He and I had helpful discussions which we both found productive, in particular on the Human Rights Act. I had not realised that he was to leave until the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said so and I share his personal regret.
  Earlier this evening we spent a great deal of time with various Members of the Committee urging that we ought to have a two-track system for those, in particular, with children; that is what it came to. Now the two-track system, as it is alleged to be, is said to be utterly wrong in principle. It is said that vouchers are a stigma. But all this amendment does is put off for a time the intermediate period up to the time when asylum seekers would all be on a voucher system. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, mentioned cost and the level of benefit across Europe was spoken of. I find those comparisons of limited use. Many countries provide more generous benefits to their own citizens, but do not give the same level to asylum seekers. Many countries have quite separate arrangements.
  I was asked about delay by the right reverend Prelate. We are putting in an additional £120 million over three years to achieve our targets. We are recruiting 2,000 additional caseworkers. Decisions at the moment, in terms of case resolution, have been running at an average of about 900 decisions a week. We have to invest money in casework. We have to provide funding for support in any event. If we look at the overall arrangements in the Bill, they will be more cost effective.
  It is said that benefits are not a magnet. I have to disagree. It is difficult otherwise to explain rationally the large number of applicants from Eastern Europe—
  1096
  I am not talking about the noble Earl's knowledge of those who live in the back streets of Jaffna. A large number of applicants are from Eastern Europe. They have a very low success rate; they make every effort to apply for asylum at port of entry and therefore receive benefits. They generally congregate in the south-east.
  If I inadvertently said an additional 2,000 case workers, I am very sorry. I thought I had said 200. If it was heard correctly or misheard as 2,000 I correct myself immediately. I am obliged to my noble friend Lord Burlison for jogging my arm on that.
  It is said that changes in application rates in 1996 were not as a result of benefit changes. I believe that they were. It is very difficult to resist the conclusion that the withdrawal of benefits, draconian though it was, did not have an effect.
  In summary, therefore, we have come to a policy decision. We have given the undertaking which I have repeated and which Jack Straw made about families with dependent children. Being realistic, as I say, there may be a slightly longer time than average spent when the new support scheme starts. We are intent on starting it. I am not going to re-traverse the dispute about vouchers, whether families with children should be treated differently and whether the cost is going to be affected. I believe that we shall deliver something which is efficient, effective and humane. Therefore, I ask the Committee not to agree to this amendment.
  Earl Russell: Before the Minister again speaks in that slightly dismissive way about the low rate of successful applications from eastern Europe, I ask him to look at the Refugee Legal Centre's hearings on the claims of the Roma who landed at Dover. I believe he will find that it is not quite as simple as he suggested.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I set the facts before the Committee.
  The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I am greatly warmed by the gracious words of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. I particularly liked the way in which the noble Earl phrased his impression of the distinctive contribution which came from these Benches and which we hope that we shall be permitted to continue. I also very much enjoyed the humour with which he made his points about benefit levels. I know the back streets of Jaffna having lived on the island of Sri Lanka for some years. Indeed, it was my perception of the mismatch between what was happening there and the perception in this country of what was occurring there which first drew me to be concerned with these issues. I am glad to support the remarks the noble Lord made about the inadequacy of the support proposed.
  The noble Lord, Lord Alton, made points about the exclusion which will be induced by having to produce vouchers and the way in which it will be easy for asylum seekers to become targets for the resentful. As regards the major flaw which the noble Lord, Lord Warner, mentioned, it seems that there will have to be two systems because of the concession which has been made

  1097
  for families with children. 'Therefore, regardless of whether this amendment is accepted, or something like it, we shall be operating with two systems.
  The Minister did not address the issue of the Government's confidence in their own ability, even with the additional resources he mentioned, to meet their own targets. It seems to me that in refusing this amendment the Government effectively are having to admit that they are covering themselves in the event of their targets not being realised. I do not believe that it was a satisfactory answer. I hope that we shall return to this matter at Report stage. As has already been mentioned, I shall not myself be present in the House then as a Member. I shall sadly miss not only these debates but those which I have shared in your Lordships' House over the years concerning many matters.
  I was encouraged yesterday to train young Bishops in the issues of immigration and asylum. I mentioned to my colleague, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, that I had received some encouragement to do that. I believe that he was flattered to be considered a young Bishop. In any case, he will be the lead Bishop on the issues of asylum and immigration in your Lordships' House in the future. I know that he will perform that role with great confidence and success. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 157 not moved.]
  Clause 85 [Persons for whom support may be provided]:
  Lord Alton of Liverpool Lord Alton of Liverpool moved Amendment No. 158:
  Page 55, line 23, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
  The noble Lord said: This amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 159 which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley. The purpose of this amendment is to give the Secretary of State not only the power but also the duty to provide support under the scheme in Part VI.
  I would draw the attention of Members of the Committee to the debate which took place in the Special Standing Committee in another place on 4th May of this year. I cannot really better the words of Mr James Clappison, the Member of Parliament for Hertsmere, who spoke on behalf of the official Opposition during those proceedings, when he said:
  "I was curious because the choice of the word "may" rather than the word "shall" seems to envisage asylum seekers or their dependants possibly being destitute according to the conditions described in subsection (1). They could have become destitute, but the Government might choose to withhold support because they are under no duty to provide it. The subsection seems to contemplate a situation where support is withheld. The Minister needs to clear up that curious feature of this Bill".—[Official Report, Commons, Special Standing Committee, 4/5/99; col. 1272.]
  This amendment gives the Government the opportunity to do just that. By definition, the support scheme is a final safety net whose recipients would otherwise be destitute, with nowhere else to turn for food or shelter.
  1098
  It is therefore necessary that the provision of support under the scheme be a matter of duty imposed on the face of the primary legislation. That is why the amendment seeks to leave out the word "may" and to insert "shall".
  Nothing short of that will do, not even assurances from the present government of an intention that the power will always be exercised. To rely on that would be to take the risk that some future Secretary of State will withhold support from the destitute. This is a theme that we have returned to time and again during Committee. It is not the good faith of the present Government or of the Ministers who sit on the Government Benches which is in doubt; it is the possibility that others who follow them, in some future incarnation, may not be prepared to act in the same way. It also ought to be said that if it is unthinkable that any Secretary of State would ever decline to exercise the power, there can be no reason not to make it a duty. That seems to me to be the most powerful argument of all. If it is unthinkable that all this will not be exercised as a duty, why not put it on the face of the Bill?
  In addition to the humanitarian consideration which destitution should always inspire, it should be remembered that some asylum seekers will, in due course, be recognised as refugees to whom the UK owes international duties (not favours) under the 1951 convention. The reason given in another place for rejecting this amendment was that there was a need to retain "flexibility"—again, that word has mentioned a great deal in our debates. I understand the reason why Ministers would want to leave themselves some room for manoeuvre, but it was stated that there would be less flexibility if support were, "an entitlement in the formal sense". Those arguments were not fleshed out and they do not stand as either principled or practical objections to denying recognition of a duty on the Secretary of State to make provision for asylum seekers to receive food and shelter. They are matters of acknowledging responsibility for meeting the basic human rights that anyone is entitled to and should be placed on the face of the legislation.
  The Minister may well say that it is his aim to prevent destitution, rather than waiting for it to happen. However, the issue here is not about "Waiting for Godot", and it is not about flexibility; it is about what duty we ought to impose. It would cost the Government little to put it on the face of the Bill. Not to do so will, conversely, raise serious questions about the Government's reasons for not acting in that way. With those words, I commend the amendment to the Committee. I beg to move.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: Amendment. No. 159, which has been grouped with Amendment No. 158, stands in my name, that of my noble friend and that of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. It seems to me that both of them go together, in the sense that Amendment No. 159 seeks to question subsection (2) of Clause 85, which allows the Government in "prescribed circumstances" to exclude people from this support. If anyone is to be excluded

  1099
  under this subsection, subsection (1) has to say "may" rather than "shall"; otherwise, the exclusion would have no effect and there would be an obligation on the Secretary of State to provide the support. Therefore, I do not think that Amendment No. 158 necessarily has the sort of apocalyptic connotations which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, seemed to suggest in part of his remarks.
  However, on the other hand, as will be apparent from the fact that I have tabled Amendment No. 159, I have some interest in who will be excluded from this provision. We obtained some guidance on this matter from the Explanatory Notes that were issued with the Bill. We are all grateful for them. Paragraph 241 states:
  "Regulations can be made under subsection (2) to exclude people from entitlement under prescribed circumstances; for example, a person who had previously caused serious damage to property provided under the support arrangements might be excluded".
  I understand the wish to penalise someone who has caused serious damage to property, but to exclude him entirely from support in those circumstances may or may not be appropriate to the damage which has been caused. The details of that provision would need to be carefully spelt out.
  The paragraph continues:
  "or an asylum seeker who was entitled to benefits".
  It seems to me that under the normal rule a person should not receive two lots of support from the state. Therefore, I am not sure how the final provision in that paragraph would apply. If one assumes that there are asylum seekers who are entitled to benefit, I do not think that they should receive support under the arrangements we are discussing on top of that benefit. I tabled Amendment No. 159 to probe who will be excluded from support under the prescriptions which will be laid down.
  Earl Russell: In supporting both these amendments, I should like to say a few words in support of Amendment No. 159 to which I have added my name. The amendment seeks to delete the words,
  "In prescribed circumstances, a person who would otherwise fall within subsection (1) is excluded".
  This is a Henry VIII clause of a fairly far-reaching kind. It authorises the Secretary of State to remove a right to benefits from such people as he sees fit. I quote only the comments on this clause from the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, which states,
  "We question the need for clause 85(2), which would enable the Secretary of State to remove this lynchpin of support from those who, in the words of clause 85(1) are 'destitute or … likely to become destitute', and recommend its deletion from the bill, or at the very least that the circumstances under which the power may be exercised are set out on the face of the bill".
  I shall not try to say it better.
  Lord Hylton: When we covered this ground previously, the relevant legislation was in many ways draconian and it appeared likely that many people—
  1100
  many of them with genuine cases—would be left destitute. On that occasion we were rescued by the Court of Appeal which found an earlier statute which could be helpful. There seems to me a strong case for making new legislation certain in the first place. On those grounds, I support Amendment No. 158.
  Lord Avebury: How can an asylum seeker who is entitled to benefits be destitute?
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: As regards Amendment No. 158, we have in this Bill a clear commitment to establish a proper scheme for the support of asylum seekers. As the Committee will know from the extensive consultations we have already engaged in, we are well on the way to achieving this. There is a clear policy on how we propose to operate the power set out in Clause 85 which will be fleshed out further in regulations covering the operation of the scheme, drawing on the various regulation-making powers that are contained within this part of the Bill.
  Amendments Nos. 158 and 159 are, in effect, two sides of the same coin. They seek to raise the following question; namely, in what circumstances could someone appear to be destitute—because that is the test under the Bill—and yet not receive support under the scheme?
  There is plainly merit in keeping the powers in this area fairly open and flexible. Legislation such as this will be on the statute book for a good number of years and may well have to address scenarios that we do not currently envisage. I would remind the Committee that the number of asylum seekers has grown tenfold over the past 10 years. We do not know what we will need to cope with in the future or how. I doubt that future governments would thank us for tying their hands with a specific duty rather than a flexible power.
  We are committed to ensuring the proper support for people pending the outcome of their asylum applications. The noble Lords cannot be unaware that we are investing considerable resources in establishing comprehensive new support arrangements to be effective from 1st April 2000. We are committed to making these work.
  In relation to the kinds of cases we would wish to take out of support, perhaps I may mention three. First, as the Explanatory Notes indicate, there is a small number of people claiming asylum who may be eligible for social security benefits; for example, those already here on indefinite leave or members of countries that are signatories to the European Social Charter or the European Convention on Medical and Social Assistance. They do not need access to this support. They will be removed from the exclusions from benefit contained in Clause 106 by virtue of regulations under Clause 106(3). The power in Clause 85(2) is complementary to that one.
  Lord Avebury: Such people must be deemed to be destitute because, if they are not deemed to be destitute, they do not come under subsection (1).
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: They would if they appear to the Secretary of State to be destitute. Let us look at the definition of "destitute" in Clause 85(3):
  "For the purposes of this section, a person is destitute if—
  (a) he does not have adequate accommodation or any means of obtaining it … or … he has adequate accommodation or the means of obtaining it, but cannot meet his other essential living needs".
  On the test, he would appear to be destitute, yet he has the means to get benefit and therefore the asylum support scheme should not apply.
  Earl Russell: That is a bigger admission of the inadequacy of benefits than I have heard from any Minister. The noble and learned Lord might like to reconsider his words.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: If a person is here on indefinite leave and has no means of support except access to benefit, he would appear to be destitute under the meaning of Clause 85(1). It seems to me a matter of common sense that he would not there fore be entitled to support both under the benefits system and under the provision of the support scheme under Clause 85. That is all I am saying. It seems to me a short and rather straightforward point. I do not see why he should be supported twice. That would be the effect of the removal of Clause 85(2) and the change of the 'word from "may" to "shall'.
  Let me take a second example. There are those who in some way abuse or seek to exploit the new arrangements. Someone who arrives with £50 in his pocket will very shortly become destitute; there is no suggestion that he should not be covered. But what about someone who arrives with £5000 in cash and who, three days later, turns up claiming to be penniless, with no explanation of where the money went? Would the Committee wish that the full range of assistance be automatically available to that person, even where he presents himself as prima facie destitute? That is a case where he could appear to the Secretary of State otherwise to be destitute.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: Before the Minister proceeds with his remarks, may I press him a little further. We have already recognised in Clause 85(1) that the person concerned is or is likely to be destitute. We secondly find that the Bill, under Clause 85(2), states:
  "In prescribed circumstances, a person who would otherwise fall within subsection (1) is excluded".
  It does not explain in any detail who that person might be. It is a very wide power. The Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee made clear that such a power is inappropriate in a Bill of this kind. I quote the words of the committee:
  "We question the need for clause 85(2), which would enable the Secretary of State to remove this lynchpin of support from those who, in the words of clause 85(1) are 'destitute or … likely to become destitute', and recommend its deletion from the bill, or at very least that the circumstances under which the power may be exercised are set out on the face of the bill".
  1102
  This is a matter of great seriousness. The Government have been responsive to many of the points that we have made. However, it is fair to say that we know of no case where a recommendation expressed in such powerful terms by the Select Committee has been rejected by a government. I think that those Members of the Opposition who represent the Conservative Party will be able to confirm that that is their experience with regard to the government who were in power until 1997.
  We beg Ministers to think again about this provision. It would set a very dangerous precedent, one that would enable Henry VIII powers to be widely introduced. Certainly, to disregard the advice of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation without the most powerful arguments being adduced— and with great respect to the Minister they have not so far been adduced—seems to us extremely unwise.
  11 p.m.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: I confirm that it is my understanding that the previous government did accept the recommendations of the Select Committee.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: First, I accept that this is a very important issue. I accept that it is sufficiently important for the noble Baroness to repeat the ipsissima verba of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who quoted precisely the same part of the report of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. That was a perfectly legitimate response.
  With the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, she asked for the circumstances to be explained in which there will be cases where a person might appear to be destitute but would not receive support under the asylum support scheme. I have indicated the first occasion, which is where a person might be eligible for benefit; the person would fall within the provisions in Clause 85(1) but it would not be appropriate to obtain support under the scheme. The second example I gave was where a person may appear to be destitute but the circumstances in which that person has become destitute are so suspicious that the Secretary of State should be entitled, without necessarily having to go behind the appearance of destitution, to say that benefit is not appropriate in this case. The third case is the one referred to in the Explanatory Notes; namely, where a person has previously caused serious damage to property provided under the support arrangements.
  One of the two circumstances in which a person is to be treated as destitute under the terms of the Bill is where that person does not have adequate accommodation or a means of obtaining it, whether or not other essential living needs are met. What is the state to do where someone who has been provided with adequate accommodation severely damages that property and does so on a number of occasions? Is the state obliged in those circumstances to go on providing property?
  The examples that I give cannot be exhaustive. However, they indicate three perfectly sensible cases where it would not be appropriate to provide support under the benefit scheme provided under Clause 85. If

  1103
  that is correct, it is right that Clause 85 should not be in terms of duty but in terms of power. Secondly, it is right, as a reinforcement or reverse of that, that there should be circumstances in which the Secretary of State can prescribe circumstances in which someone who would otherwise appear to be destitute could be excluded from the support scheme under Clause 85.
  Having said that, I should make it clear that we have given undertakings that we will provide a comprehensive new support arrangement, which we are determined should be effective from 1st April 2000. I should also make clear that these arrangements would take the form of regulations governing the operation of the scheme which will obviously come before Parliament again. In those circumstances, there is not much between us. Once it is established that there are circumstances in which it would not be appropriate to provide someone with support under the scheme who otherwise appeared to be destitute, the form of drafting appears to me appropriate. This is about drafting and nothing else.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: Perhaps I may take it one stage further. As the Minister argues that there are clear circumstances where the continuation of any form of support would be inappropriate—and one can think of examples—would he be willing to accede to the Committee's proposal that this be set out on the face of the Bill? Can the noble and learned Lord tell the Committee why he believes that, so far at least, that has not proved to be possible?
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Because it would be inappropriate in a case such as this exhaustively to set out the circumstances in which someone would not be entitled to support under the scheme. This scheme will last for a considerable time. It must be sufficiently flexible for the benefit of both the asylum seeker and the taxpayer in the sense of what is available and what is not. In determining a whole system of support, it does not seem to me that the details should be on the face of primary legislation.
  Lord Alton of Liverpool: The Minister responded in terms that many of us assumed he would as regards this debate. It is very much in line with the remarks made by the Minister of State in another place. The noble and learned Lord will not be surprised that some of us found them a little disappointing, although we recognise that he has also expressed his determination to ensure that this does not militate against the most disadvantaged.
  The basic proposition in our argument does not question the good faith of the Minister or the Home Office but how it might be interpreted by others if it is not written on to the face of the Bill. The only flexibility that is available by not incorporating the word "shall" instead of "may" in Clause 85 is the flexibility not to provide destitute asylum seekers with food and shelter. I find that extraordinary.
  I do not believe a great deal separates us on the need to address the problem. As the Minster has marginally left the door ajar for him to think about the wording of
  1104
  the amendment, I hope that between now and Report stage we will have a chance to see whether there is a form of words which would meet the arguments. I suspect that otherwise Members of the Committee will wish to return to the subject. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 159 not moved.]
  Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 160:
  Page 56, line 5, at end insert ("except insofar as that fact may affect adversely the welfare of a child").
  The noble Lord said: In view of the extensive debate earlier on Amendment No. 156, I take the view that children and those with children should be given an element of special consideration in the arrangements that we make under this part of the Bill. It is one narrow and special point. The idea of the amendment is to prevent children being put at risk by virtue of the explicit exclusion of having regard to the fact of accommodation being shared. It is an extremely narrow point, but nevertheless it has an importance of its own.
  It is suggested that we should discuss it with other amendments listed in the groupings which include Amendments Nos. 165 and 166 standing in my name and the names of my noble friends. By taking out the word "not", Amendment No. 165 would permit the Secretary of State to have regard, in deciding where an asylum seeker and his dependants were to be sent to live for the time being, to a preference as to the locality in which the accommodation was to be provided. That does not mean that the asylum seeker would be able to make the decision, but the Secretary of State could take into account and either ignore or agree to the preference expressed by the supported person. That seems more reasonable than the provision in the Bill that expressly forbids the Secretary of State to take any account of preferences.
  Amendment No. 166 would delete subsection (3) of Clause 87. It follows the recommendation in the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee's report on the Bill. Paragraph 22 begins by saying:
  "The Committee does not consider the Henry VIII power in Clause 87(3) justified".
  The report goes on to express the Committee's reasons. I am sure that your Lordships have seen it and I do not need to expand on the reasons. We should pay careful attention to the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, which is a senior and important committee of the House that does a great service to us all by examining the small print of matters within its remit. It has been the habit of governments of both parties to take the committee's recommendations very seriously. I believe that they have all so far been agreed to. I beg to move.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I wonder if I could help the Committee by dealing discretely with the point about the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee's

  1105
  recommendation in case others had similar concerns. We are reflecting on the best way of addressing the issue and we intend to return to the matter on Report.
  Lord Alton of Liverpool: I am sure that the whole Committee is grateful for the Minister's pre-emptive strike. I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 161 and 164 and I support the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, on his amendments.
  The two amendments in my name concentrate on the housing needs and the basic requirements of asylum seekers in the neighbourhoods where they are settled. My noble friend Lord Sandwich and I raised our concerns last week during the meeting with the Minister of State and his officials to which I referred earlier.
  Twenty years ago I was the chairman of one of the country's largest housing committees in Liverpool. The committee was well intentioned in wanting to help some of the boat people from Vietnam who were seeking refuge in this country. Along with the other Merseyside boroughs, we put together a plan to assist those asylum seekers and more than 1,000 came to Merseyside. Our experience leads me to question the assumptions on which some of the Government's policies are based, particularly the issue of adequate housing needs rather than suitable housing needs, which is the subject of Amendment No. 161.
  We were well intentioned, but hard-to-let accommodation on sink estates was inevitably used. In dispersed areas, mainly around the periphery of the city, people were left without common or familial support systems. They had no access to language facilities to help them. In one way the council was being relieved of the embarrassment of empty properties from which it was drawing no rent.
  I was concerned to learn during the recent Kosovo crisis that the same local authority was suggesting that properties that have been vacant for some years might be made available to refugees. I know that that would draw in resources to a local authority that often finds itself short of funds, but the properties were not suitable for our tenants, who had been moved out of them some years before, and would certainly not be suitable for Kosovan refugees any more than the properties that we made available 20 years ago were suitable for the Vietnamese refugees.
  Based on that hard experience, I commend Amendment No. 161, which would specify that the accommodation provided must be suitable for the needs of the individual even though it is temporary. The asylum support information document states an intention to make "acceptable" provision for asylum seekers. This amendment in a sense probes the good faith of that statement.
  Accommodation, however temporary, which is not suitable to the needs of the individual asylum seeker, and his dependants, if any, is not capable of taking them out of destitution and is thus not capable of fulfilling the basic purpose of the scheme. For example, accommodation that is perfectly adequate in itself may be unsuitable for a wheelchair user if the sleeping and
  1106
  toilet facilities are not on the same level, or someone with a phobia about heights may find that the accommodation he is offered is on the 14th floor.
  The point about location suitable for resettlement is crucial to making good the Government's stated intention that new arrangements should not penalise refugees. The particular accommodation offered under the scheme will be temporary, but every effort should be made to locate asylum seekers in areas where they can start to put down roots as soon as possible. It is accepted that those whose claims ultimately fail will then be uprooted. But for those who are recognised as refugees, there should be a realistic possibility of staying on in the area where they first settled, along with all the support systems that surely have to go with the policy of dispersal.
  The Home Office itself has emphasised that it wishes to see those asylum seekers who are recognised as refugees, or are otherwise granted leave to remain in the United Kingdom, settle in the areas to which they are dispersed. It would prefer not to see secondary migration, particularly not back to the capital. The cases of the Ugandan Asians and the Vietnamese are examples of the way in which previous dispersal schemes have lasted for only a short time before secondary migration has taken over. If the Government are to achieve their stated objectives, then the factors set out in Amendment No. 161 must be taken to heart.
  I would also commend to the Minister a first-hand experience of recent months. I commend to him a report which appeared on Thursday, 8th July, in the Harrow Times, which described how a man set fire to himself after facing eviction from a property. The report states:
  "An Iranian asylum seeker who was due to be moved from a Harrow Weald hostel to Devon tried to set himself on fire because he was so upset by the news, a Harrow court heard last week".
  The report goes on to say:
  "The court was told that the 32-year-old barricaded himself in his room when he was told to leave temporary accommodation … and wrapped himself in a sheet and set light to it while holding a knife to his throat until police broke down the door".
  It is cases like that which illustrate my point. What we may regard as being perfectly adequate may not be suitable. Therefore, we should look carefully at these definitions, which have been used in housing legislation over the years. "Suitable" has particular connotations in the context of legislation dealing with homeless people.
  I wish also to commend Amendment No. 164. The amendment provides a duty to assist destitute asylum seekers. It would be a way to fulfil the covenant set out in the White Paper. However, as the provision is drafted, the Home Office would be able to refuse assistance, leaving people homeless and without the means of subsistence. I wish to draw to the attention of the Committee the views of Shelter, one of the most highly respected agencies in this country. It states:
  "There are complex reasons why such housing is empty including the physical condition of properties; isolation of housing from transport, leisure and shopping facilities and employment; crime and the fear of crime and harassment".

  1107
  It goes on to state:
  "The factors which must be disregarded in deciding whether accommodation is adequate are precisely the factors that describe the inadequacy of the accommodation".
  Without labouring the point—I recognise that the hour is late—I commend the two amendments to the Committee.
  The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I thank the Minister for his earlier intervention in dealing with a discrete issue. I apologise to him for failing to respond to remarks made at the end of the debate on Amendment No. 156. He commented on the work that he and I did in the context of human rights. I thank him for his very careful consideration of our concern. My memory is that the concern had been expressed originally by the Conservative Party, but I was also able to express it on behalf of this Bench. That matter gave rise to considerable confusion among the Liberal Democrats at the time. We were extremely grateful for the concession, which was perhaps somewhat unexpected, in relation to that particular Bill. I am grateful to the Minister for his willingness to listen on so many occasions and assist this House in every possible way, and also for his kind remarks about myself.
  The Earl of Sandwich: My noble friend Lord Alton needs absolutely no support from me. Therefore I follow the example of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and sit down, having said that the reasons given by the Minister when we went to see him appeared to be rather technical. I hope that he will be able to expand on those reasons, particularly in view of what I am sure will be his general sympathy for the observations that have been made.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I dealt with Amendment No. 166 in an earlier intervention. Therefore, in this debate we are concerned with Amendments Nos. 160, 161, 164, 164A and 165. I respect the concern expressed for the welfare of children in Amendment No. 160. There is no inherent reason why shared accommodation should not be adequate to meet an asylum seeker's living needs, bearing in mind that his stay in this country as an asylum seeker will be for a relatively limited period when we have new support arrangements in place and faster asylum decisions are delivered. Sharing is not the same as overcrowding. Shared facilities may be acceptable, for example where they are shared by only two or three adults. That is by no means uncommon in houses in multiple occupation in the country generally.
  I agree that as for families we may need to consider different criteria in respect of such matters as access to bathroom and kitchen facilities. I confirm that the Government would not regard arrangements that prejudiced the health and welfare of a child as adequate for the purposes of Clause 85. To respond to one point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, in my view first-floor accommodation without a lift is not adequate for a person in a wheelchair.
  1108
  We have not formulated the details of the scheme by which we shall assess people for destitution and then provide the appropriate support. I assure the Committee that we are alive to the questions that have been raised relating to regulations to be made under Clause 85(8). I do not believe that we need to reflect that by way of amendment to the primary legislation. I hope that I am being helpful in acknowledging that within the secondary legislation we may well wish to reflect the need for the welfare of families to be properly taken into account in making judgments about accommodation.
  I hope that I have dealt with the spirit of the concerns about "suitable" raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. One of the problems is that, as he knows better than I, in the context of housing legislation there is a mass of judicial adjudication. We need to be careful not to confuse the two. Housing legislation is essentially concerned with people who are established in this country. Many of them have extensive possessions and settled lifestyles, and, therefore, their needs are different.
  We want to provide asylum seekers with accommodation that is adequate for their needs: shelter and facilities for the proper preparation of food, sleeping and personal hygiene. But that accommodation must also reflect their circumstances. I do not believe that we need another definition that may be inappropriate for the reason that I mentioned. I undertake to consider carefully whether there is a need to use the regulations under Clause 87 to give a more precise meaning to the new concept of "adequate".
  I turn to Amendment No. 164. I have already indicated our general approach. I doubt that we need to detail matters in primary legislation. Some of the points may well need to be covered in regulations to be made under Clause 87(1)(c); others will be a matter for the Secretary of State's scheme and the desk instructions that go with it. I undertake that we shall consult on the content of the regulations later this year. We shall also publish a revised version of the process manual which sets out the way in which an asylum seeker's case for support will be processed. We shall be asking asylum seekers whether they have any special needs at the time we consider the initial application. If there are special needs—such as physical disability; to take one illustration further—we should want to take those into account in deciding what sort of support to offer and in what location.
  Lord Alton of Liverpool: I appreciate the tone of the Minister's reply on these points. Can the noble Lord give us any indication of when the regulations to which he refers might be published? Shall we have sight of even a draft version before Report stage?
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am not sure about the time-scale. I shall write to the noble Lord before we break for the Summer Recess, even if it is to say that my uncertainty remains the same and I cannot give more than an indication. However, I shall do the best that I can by next Thursday.
  I said that we should be looking to considerations of safety and welfare; locations where there are others from the same ethnic background or with similar experiences;

  1109
  putting individuals where they will not be subject to racial harassment; and taking full account of the general need for decent, habitable accommodation.
  The Home Office has surpassed itself. I now have the intelligence that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, wanted. We shall consult in October, and the regulations should be available in the new year (February). At the end of February, I know that the noble Lord will be asking me where they are, but that is the information I have.
  It is important to reiterate what my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer and I have said on many occasions: children of asylum seekers will continue to enjoy the full protection of the Children Act in all essential respects, and their accommodation and essential living needs will be provided under the Part VI arrangements. In particular—I am going further than the point raised this evening—if there is a particular need to protect children—for example, if they are likely to be victims of abuse—I am happy to confirm that they will be able to continue to rely on the good offices of local authority social services departments.
  On public health, those seeking asylum at port of entry would normally be subject to a health screening for infectious or similar diseases. We shall consider what other steps need to be taken in the cluster areas (as believe that I can call them) to maintain good public health given the influx of asylum seekers. We expect—it is the point of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia—that legal services suitable to the needs of asylum seekers will develop in the areas where we are relocating. That is part of the continuing discussions with the Lord. Chancellor's Department which my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer mentioned earlier.
  I shall revert in more detail to this point on a later amendment, but touch on it now. A small number of asylum seekers require specialist services to address conditions which result from torture. I pay tribute to the very fine work of the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture. Where it is clear that someone needs specialised services which cannot be delivered other than through a body of that sort, and the location of that body does not fit in with our normal cluster arrangements, we shall consider the possibility of finding accommodation adjacent to those services. It is a limited number of cases, but that does not make the point any less important. I shall retain for the next amendment the further good news arising out of our conversations so that we can all go to bed content, if not happy.
  We have to look to landlords who can provide quality accommodation on a suitable basis and who will be willing and able to rehouse those who have been granted asylum. I stress that we are talking from our experience. The Bosnian resettlements exercise about five years ago showed that if you put enough effort into it, and people are settled alongside others from a similar background, it can be effective.
  Amendments Nos. 164A and 165 involve an extremely neat piece of drafting. They turn the point of the Bill utterly on its head. For that reason, if for no other, I am unable to accept them. One of the problems at the moment is that some London authorities and their
  1110
  social services departments just cannot cope. In some London boroughs, half of the temporary accommodation that the boroughs use is now occupied by asylum seekers. That is a great difficulty and we should not close our minds to it.
  Other parts of the United Kingdom have a surplus of spare housing. I take the point made by the noble Lord. Lord Alton of Liverpool, that some of it is not good, but some of it is perfectly suitable. In fact, there were more than 75,000 vacancies in local authority housing outside the London area.
  We want to try to house people from the same background in the same areas wherever possible and we shall do our best to do so. At the risk of being rebuked for being Mr Scrooge yet again, I may say that the homelessness legislation, which is the nearest parallel in this context, does not envisage any choice of accommodation for the person being assisted. Most asylum seekers being accommodated at the moment by virtue of judicial intervention—as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said—under the National Assistance Act 1948 are not given any choice about location of accommodation. If we succeed in our aim of having a relatively short period of accommodation, anyone who is granted leave to remain in this country will have the ability to make whatever arrangements they wish.
  I think that I have covered most of the questions that have been raised. I hope that the Committee accepts that I have been reasonably helpful. I stress, as my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton said earlier, that we are having a meeting with interested parties tomorrow. We are willing to approach questions in an open-minded way as long as they are consistent with the general spirit of the Bill. I hope that I have demonstrated that with this clutch of amendments.
  11.30 p.m.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am grateful to the Minister for his reaction to Amendment No. 166 and for his pre-emptive strike. I remain puzzled by the fact that the Government, as the Minister reiterated, propose to ask the supported people what their special needs may be but will include a statutory ban on the Secretary of State taking any notice of any preference they might express about where they wish to live. That is an odd provision.
  Amendment No. 160 was the main amendment in this group, and I have been reassured by what the Minister said and by the provisions of Clause 113(3) and (4), to which the Minister, had he wished to extend the debate, could also have referred.
  The Earl of Sandwich: I wonder whether the Minister has said his last word on clusters. Has he responded to the concerns of the Medical Foundation and others about specialised medical and legal services?
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: Yes, at some length. Indeed, I said that I had one more point to make about the victims of torture. Otherwise, I think that I have dealt with the matter quite fully.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 85 agreed to.
  Schedule 8 agreed to.
  Clause 86[Ways in which support may be provided]:
  [Amendment No. 161 not moved.]
  Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby moved Amendment No. 162:
  Page 56, line 32, at end insert ("and obtaining specialist medical care and treatment for himself and his dependants (if any).
  () Costs of travel to appointments with legal representatives acting for the supported person in his claim for asylum, and appointments for specialist medical care and treatment for himself and his dependants, where such services are not available locally, shall be paid under section 85.").
  The noble Baroness said: I note that the lights are slowly going out on us, so I shall make my remarks reasonably short before they disappear completely. It seems an appropriate conclusion to the third day in Committee.
  The Minister was extremely gracious in the way that he received my noble friend Lord Dholakia and myself to discuss, among other things, victims of torture. He listened carefully and sympathised with the concept that victims of torture are among those who are highly likely to be genuine refugees. Indeed, some of those who have undergone torture have done so for the highest possible motives. Only tonight, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, introduced my noble friend to a victim of torture who happened to be a British citizen. He had been tortured in his efforts to try to support the refugees on the borders of Burma and Thailand. Therefore, being a victim of torture is not exclusively the characteristic of those seeking asylum in this country, but sometimes has pertained to British citizens fighting for something in which they profoundly believe.
  On 26th April in another place, the Minister of State told the special committee of the House of Commons that he recognised that victims of torture were a particular group who deserved to be addressed sensitively. He also went on to say clearly that the present provision for victims of torture was inadequate and that we have not sufficient capacity in place to deliver for victims of torture. He made it plain that he recognised that in many parts of the country no adequate provision was available.
  The reason why in Amendment No. 162 we have pressed for there to be special treatment for victims of torture over and above the provision for special treatment already made in the Bill is precisely because those facilities are not available in many parts of the country. The Minister has implied that special consideration will therefore be given to the dispersal of such asylum seekers. I am most grateful for that and hope that he will have more to say in his response to this last group of amendments.
  I wish strongly to underline that, while the British Medical Association has responded generously in attempting to draw up lists of medical practitioners willing to meet victims who claim to be tortured and to see them rapidly, busy doctors will not be free to travel
  1112
  all over the country and will not be able to hold such sessions a long way away from their own centres. Therefore, I shall be grateful to hear more from the Minister about the provisions he intends to make in order to ensure that these particular asylum seekers are given the proper opportunity professionally to establish their claims to have been tortured.
  In that context, I hope that the Minister will bear in mind Amendment No. 169. One of the aspects of the Bill which troubles me is that Clause 88(3)(b) implies that provision made for asylum seekers by, for example, voluntary organisations and others may be taken into account in considering their needs. In the case of that marvellous body, the Medical Foundation for the Victims of Torture, the Minister will be aware that the expenses it bears in order to assist asylum seekers claiming torture to have adequate tests made of their claims amounted in the past year to some £22,000. It expects that in the next year the amount will be about £100 each working day. Most of us are aware that every week or two we receive innumerable requests for charitable assistance to voluntary organisations; to the Refugee Council, the Medical Foundation and many other bodies involved in the work. It may be that one should not look to them to provide the elements which are necessary to establish a claim.
  In Amendment No. 169, we specifically mention the faith communities as not being included within the provisions expected by the Bill to add up to additional assets and support for asylum seekers. In that context, I, too, pay tribute to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon. He is not in his place but I expect that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark will pass on the remarks to him. We shall deeply miss his wisdom, example and enlightenment during many debates in this House. I hope and believe that he will pass on the torch to the young Bishop, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, to whose presence on these occasions we shall look forward.
  I wish to make only a passing remark about Amendment No. 167, to which I suspect others may wish to speak in this group. The amendment affects Clause 87(6) of the Bill on page 57. That rather troubles me because it indicates that for the purposes of subsection (5)—namely, the power which deals with essential living needs—as I read the Bill, any additional support for exceptional circumstances given under Clause 86(1)(c) would simply be set off against the provision of essential living needs.
  While I recognise that the Minister has graciously agreed to some increase in the amount provided for essential living needs, it troubles us that if the provision is simply to be reduced to exceptional needs, in the case of victims of torture we should not be a great deal further forward. I thank the Minister for the clues which he has provided, but we also express our concerns about some aspects of the Bill, in particular, the tension between adopting the cluster method of dealing with refugees and the special problems referred to by his colleague in another place with regard to the provision for victims of torture.
  That is the group of all asylum seekers about which we feel most concerned, indeed, even anguished. They are the people who have sometimes fought for the very things in which we believe at a terrible price to their health and which often involve great risks for their families.
  Lord Avebury: My amendment deals with a completely different point to that raised by my noble friend. The only common feature of the amendments is that they are both attached to Clause 86. I should like to preface my remarks with a comment on subsection (1)(b) of Clause 86. The Minister will observe that the Bill states:
  "Support may be provided under Section 85—by providing what appears to the Secretary of State to be essential living needs of the supported person".
  As a matter of English construction, If do not believe that the Secretary of State can provide for the living needs of a person. He can provide resources to meet the living needs of a person. The wording of that subsection needs to be considered. I should perhaps have tabled an amendment to that effect, but it came to my notice in the course of considering where to put my own amendment, which deals with the question of vouchers.
  The amendment attempts to address the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, when moving his amendment a few minutes ago. He emphasised that the use of the vouchers causes a stigma to be attached to the recipient; that he may be subject to racist harassment or abuse as the result of being picked out as different from the rest of the people in the supermarket. My amendment suggests that vouchers should be made transferable to address that problem. I must say as a preface that it is difficult to draft an amendment of this kind when we do not have the voucher scheme before us. We are working blind, as it were. It would certainly have been, and still would be, useful if the Minister could table the regulations which contain the scheme for the vouchers before Report stage so that we can more easily see where such a provision should go.
  My suggestion is that the vouchers should be made transferable so that the asylum seeker himself or herself does not need to go into Tesco's or Sainsbury's, as the case may be, to cash them. He can give them to someone else; that person can do the shopping for him; and therefore he does not need to be singled out in front of the whole crowd of shoppers as a person who is distinct from the settled population.
  A provision of this kind is essential because some of the recipients may not be able to get to a supermarket. They may be disabled; they may be ill; they may be bedridden, and if they cannot pass the vouchers on to another person, it is difficult to imagine how they will provide for their essential needs.
  A situation can be imagined where a number of asylum seekers live together. In response to the previous amendment, the Minister said that it was by no means inadequate for people to live in shared accommodation. If two or more families live in shared accommodation, it would be natural for them to share the burden of the
  1114
  weekly shop by transferring all the vouchers to one person to do the shopping for everyone in the shared accommodation.
  I do not need to say much more about the amendment as it is such a common sense provision that I am sure that the Minister will have no difficulty in accepting it.
  11.45 p.m.
  Lord Alton of Liverpool: I speak to the amendments standing in my name on the Marshalled List: Amendments Nos. 167, 168 and 169 which have been grouped in what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has rightly described as a disparate group of amendments. In many ways, they have little in common with each other apart from the fact that they fall within the same part of the Bill. It would have been better if they had been separated. However, I want to refer to one or two remarks already made and to add some comments about Amendment No. 167.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, when speaking to Amendment No. 169, reminded me why 16 or 17 years ago I gave up several weeks of my life happily campaigning for her in the Crosby area. It has been a pleasure to listen to her putting the case on behalf of refugees and asylum seekers. Although we sit on different Benches, I concur with everything that she has said throughout our proceedings on the Bill. On Amendment No. 169, she was right to raise the issue of the role of voluntary organisations, charities, churches and religious groups to which I referred earlier. Those arguments still stand, without me having to repeat them.
  The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on Amendment No. 163, referred to an earlier debate initiated by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon when several noble Lords mentioned the question of vouchers. I support his comments and refer to some remarks of Oona King, a Member of another place, who gave a good example of how vouchers will reduce purchasing power, and therefore why the value of a package will be worth less. In Commons Hansard of 16th June at cols. 446–447 she referred to the fact that in Sainsburys in Whitechapel, where vouchers are accepted, a pair of new children's socks cost £1.50 while on Whitechapel market, 20 yards away, a pair of children's socks cost only 40p. The same is true of food. Of course, change will not be given for vouchers. I can imagine people becoming involved in arguments in the supermarket as they try, with poor comprehension of English, to sort out all the issues that will arise at the supermarket counter when trying to deal with the vouchers.
  For the reasons that I described earlier, this is an ill-thought-out scheme and no doubt one which in future legislation we shall have to rescind. It would be better if we addressed the matter properly now, rather than incorporating it into legislation only to have to revisit it, as we have done with some of the misplaced ideas that have emerged in the previous two pieces of legislation dealing with such issues.
  I now turn to the substantive amendment standing in my name. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, for his support, to the noble Lord. Lord Clinton-Davis, and to the right reverend Prelate the

  1115
  Bishop of Southwark, who have also put their names to the amendment. Although many of us dislike the voucher system, I recognise that at the moment that is the policy with which the Government are working. Amendment No. 167 tries, in the spirit of that policy, to address the Government's contention with regard to the value of the package that they have laid out in the terms of the Bill. That was a point that my noble friend Lord Sandwich, along with Mr. Michael Kaye of the Refugee Council, took to the Minister and his officials in the helpful meeting that we had with him last week.
  There are four reasons the Government advance against accepting the arguments contained in the amendment. Let me try and deal with them quickly. The first is that the scheme is a short-term basic safety net. Asylum seekers' entitlement to income support has already been reduced to 90 per cent on the basis that they are only supposed to be waiting a short period of time for their decisions. But asylum seekers should not have to survive on less because they are only here on a temporary basis. That is not a plausible argument. Income support is only intended to meet an individual's basic needs, and those needs must be met regardless of whether it is for a period of two months or two years.
  Secondly, the argument is put forward that the package is not intended to cover utility costs. But a family of four in receipt of income support, including family premium, would pay 8.8 per cent of their benefit on utility costs. That is calculated from standard, flat-rate fuel deductions for a family at £12.35 which are used when individual fuel costs are not easily identifiable. That calculation was confirmed by the Official Report, Commons, 10/6/99; col. 455, when it was said that it would be no more than 10 per cent. So the payment of utility costs by the accommodation provider will increase to the value of the package by approximately 9 per cent of the asylum seeker's income support.
  The third argument is that asylum seekers will not need to purchase replacement items. That assertion also needs to be challenged. Asylum seekers will certainly have to replace items within a six-month period. It is not credible to argue that they will arrive in Britain with clothes and possessions which will last them for six months. Furthermore, when fleeing their homes asylum seekers will have left behind many basic items which they will have to purchase again once they reach the United Kingdom. They may also arrive here without appropriate items, such as the appropriate clothes for the British climate. That was recognised by Mr O'Brien in another place when he accepted that,
  "Asylum seekers often arrive with few or no possessions and little concept of how they will cope in this country".
  Those remarks were made in the special standing committee on 4th May.
  The fourth and final point, dealing with some of the arguments put to us during our meeting at the Home Office, was that basic living utensils would be supplied by the accommodation provider and that must be seen to be part of the package. But currently the vast majority of private rented accommodation is furnished and many also provide basic utensils. However, British people
  1116
  living in furnished accommodation do not have their income support reduced as a consequence. To suggest, therefore, that asylum seekers should have a lower level of support because accommodation is furnished is not acceptable. The Government said that accommodation would include kettles, bed linen, light bulbs and other items which are not normally provided in housing. That is true. But the value that that would add to the package would be more than offset by the fact that the voucher system will effectively prohibit asylum seekers from getting the best value for money, as described by Oona King in another place. They will not be able to buy cheap food and clothing in markets or discount stores, which is where most people on low incomes do their shopping. Furthermore, even if the vouchers are issued in small denominations of 50p or 25p, asylum seekers will not be able to obtain change and will therefore lose some of the package. That is another reason for looking again at the overall value of the package that the Bill outlines.
  No allowance has been made for the fact that many asylum seekers have to purchase essential items on arrival, replace items during the six months that they are here or may be in poor health when they reach the United Kingdom. That was certainly the case with many of the Kosovars who arrived here recently.
  Based on that assessment the package of support offered is approximately 10 per cent short of the 90 per cent of income support, and therefore 20 per cent below what is normally considered to be the poverty line. After all, we are not talking of vast sums of money. None of us would wish to try to survive and eke out subsistence on the sums of money that we are dealing with. Asylum seekers will clearly be forced to try to survive well below the breadline and that will lead to more begging, which is an issue raised during our debates tonight. It will lead to illegal working, petty crime and the negative impact on race and community relations which will follow in its wake. Those are the consequences. We should go into this situation with our eyes wide open. Unless we are as generous as we can afford to be—to use the language that has been used consistently throughout this debate—those will be the social consequences. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, was right when he warned us earlier on of the consequences of social breakdown if we deliberately create those circumstances.
  The Government state that the value of the package should be 90 per cent of income support. Therefore, Amendment No. 167, which increases the package of vouchers and cash to 80 per cent, is consistent with their policy and I therefore commend this amendment to the Committee.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: As the Committee will have noticed, I have added my name to Amendment No. 167. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about it particularly in view of what he trailed a little earlier on this point and on assistance where children are involved. He also led us to believe that he has a few more favourable things to say. We look forward to that.

  1117
  I did not take part at the appropriate place in earlier debates so perhaps I may use this moment to associate this Bench with the compliments that were paid to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and express our regret at his pending departure from our debates. However, I note in passing that, although he will be retired from this House, he will still be able to use some of its facilities. We look forward to seeing him from time to time on that basis at any rate.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: Amendment No. 162 give me the opportunity to clarify our position. I repeat that asylum seekers and dependants will be entitled to the full range of medical and dental services which the general public receive. If they are destitute they can get the appropriate form entitling them to free prescriptions, free spectacles, free dental treatment and free travel to hospitals in the same way as anyone else on income support
  Generally, the provision of medical services is good across the whole country. We would expect that medical facilities in the cluster areas will be, with very few exceptions, fully equal to meeting the need for specialist medical treatment. That would be under normal National Health Service arrangements. We would not expect there to be a need for the asylum seeker to receive additional assistance in getting such treatment.
  As I said earlier, where there is a clear case for special medical treatment which is only available in a limited number of locations, we shall consider that in deciding on location.
  I can deal with legal representation quite briefly because I believe my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer made the position plain in response to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, on a number of occasions. I repeat what my noble and learned friend said. If the power is required to pay for travel expenses to arrange an interview with a legal representative, that is to be found already in Clause 86(1)(c).
  The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, had a most helpful discussion a few days ago. I said that I would think carefully about what was urged on me. It seemed to me to be well founded. I hope that the noble Baroness will be as pleased as the rest of the Committee to hear that, in circumstances where a general practitioner concludes that an asylum seeker has been the victim of torture and local medical services do not fully deal with the particular nature of the case, so access to the specialised services provided by the medical foundation would be in the patient's best interests, we would arrange to pay the costs of travel by the asylum seeker to appointments with representatives of the medical foundation. I believe that is really what the noble Baroness and the noble Lord wanted. I believe that that is fair reflection of their concerns. I hope that they find that helpful.
  Amendment No. 163 concerns matters arising from the anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. He and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, are quite right. We have come to a policy conclusion which is different from theirs. We have decided on a part-voucher system. The
  1118
  noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked in particular about vouchers and when we might have more detail. I take his point. We shall be looking to issue a consultation paper in October on the regulations to be made under these powers. The fine tuning of the exact form of the scheme will be later because it depends on the outcome of the contract to be awarded.
  The noble Lord also raised the question of "essential living needs" under Clause 86(1)(b). The provision is drafted in that way because it is intended to encompass the idea of support in kind—food, pots and pans and utilities— as well as cash or vouchers. I take note of the noble Lord's concerns about user-specific vouchers. The benefit of them is quite clear: they provide asylum seekers with security of ownership. If they can only be redeemed by the asylum seeker to whom they are issued, they are of no value to a thief; indeed, they are useless. Similarly, they are of no value if someone attempts to bully or, as it were, blackmail the asylum seeker to sell the voucher in return for cash at a discount. Therefore, a new, discounted, black market is prevented. Those are important considerations.
  However, I take the noble Lord's point that there may be occasions when, for example, the principal recipient is ill and where it may perhaps be necessary for another member of the family to use the vouchers. In specific response to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, I can tell the Committee that we are looking now at a means of introducing desirable flexibility into the scheme. I do not think that that will go as far as the noble Lord wants, but at least we will be looking for a degree of flexibility. Therefore, in exceptional circumstances, we could perhaps have a proviso that vouchers could be redeemed by a nominated person on the asylum seeker's behalf.
  I turn now to Amendment No. 167—
  Midnight
  The Lord Bishop of Southwark: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but as I have attached my name to this amendment perhaps I may have the opportunity to say a few brief words. As I mentioned earlier, I believe that much of the Government's proposal assumes that there will be co-operation from the voluntary sector. As we have drop-in centres for refugees in half of the London boroughs at present, we have a certain experience to feed in the debate on this amendment.
  I should like to say a few words about the argument that the level of support for asylum seekers needs to be less because they will not need to replace items during the limited time in which they will be covered by these support provisions. We had the Lambeth Conference in Canterbury for three weeks last year. During that time, I had to return home twice in order to provide more sweaters and coats for Bishops and their wives from Africa, India and other parts of the world who were battling with the rigours of an English summer.
  Our drop-in centres for refugees are constantly supplying clothing and household items all the year round. If noble Lords wish to see a voucher system working, we could perhaps visit a drop-in centre such as the one in Croydon. Each person who goes there is

  1119
  supplied with a colour-coded ticket, or several such tickets. One ticket is for food, one is for household utensils and one is for clothing. If the volunteers running that centre were asked whether or not asylum seekers, especially those with children, need to return for further items within a six-month period, they would witness to the fact that such people in a strange land, with a variable climate, need to return constantly for appropriate items of clothing and support.
  In an earlier intervention, I asked the noble and learned Lord whether the voluntary sector had been consulted about being involved in hard cases of support and whether it had given its consent. The Minister answered "yes" to the first part of the question but I did not hear him say "yes" to the second part.
  I believe that the voluntary sector is willing and wants to play its part in helping to bridge the gap between the support package on offer and the provisions that we feel are necessary for a civilised society. It is generally felt by those who are most closely involved with helping asylum seekers that the gap that is being created is just too wide.
  Amendment No. 167 would in no way conflict with the Government's stated aims and I believe that it would make the support gap a little more manageable. It would enable those of us who are involved in the voluntary sector better to enter into the partnership which the Government desire.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I believe that I have dealt with the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on vouchers.
  I turn to Amendment No. 167. I shall try not to repeat what I said earlier. We are looking to provide a package of support that is appropriate to the needs of particular people. As I said, most asylum seekers have few possessions and limited knowledge of the requirements of daily life in this country. However, they will be in need of support for a few months only. We are trying to provide a focused package that addresses particular needs.
  As I said earlier, for some single people that will comprise full board and lodging in a hostel with a cash allowance. In other cases, it will comprise fully equipped self-catering accommodation. We recognise that in the overwhelming majority of cases these people will not have brought with them domestic equipment such as bedding and pots and pans which we provide—we also provide gas, water and electricity—partly because they will be in the accommodation for a relatively short time and partly because they will not be familiar with the minutiae of arrangements in this country.
  Single adults in receipt of income support currently receive about £45 a week. Under our support proposals, the intention is that they will receive spending power in vouchers and cash of about £35 a week. We are looking to be more flexible as regards the number and nature of retail outlets—to take up a specific point made by the right reverend Prelate—which are willing to accept vouchers. As I say, income support for a single adult is
  1120
  about £45 a week. We believe that with spending power in vouchers and cash of about £35 a week, it is not unreasonable to say that the difference of £10 is accounted for by utilities and the provision of domestic equipment which a person in receipt of social security benefits would normally need to provide and pay for himself.
  I repeat what I said earlier this evening: we have listened carefully to the concerns about children. I said quite plainly earlier tonight that we have now indicated that children under the age of 18 will have a support level set at a level equivalent to income support personal allowances. We propose that the provision for adults should remain unchanged for the reasons I set out earlier; namely, the in-kind provisions.
  Amendment No. 167 seeks to increase the value of the new support arrangements to at least 80 per cent of income support levels for adults, and to 100 per cent for children. I shall say no more about children. As regards adults, the provision is designed to provide a short-term safety net, whereas income support is designed to provide support on a long-term basis with all the costs that that implies. Some Members of the Committee take a contrary view, but having looked at all the arguments I think that that is a perfectly legitimate conclusion. A short-term safety net regime is different, and ought to be different, from a long-term basis of support. One has to bear in mind that we are developing a better position than exists at the moment as we shall provide a degree of advice and assistance provided by voluntary sector bodies working in the "cluster" areas. The asylum seeker will be relieved of the responsibility, which must be quite considerable in a strange land, of finding his own accommodation.
  We want to work in close partnership with voluntary associations. Normally the criticism that I have to meet on these occasions suggests that we do not work closely enough with the voluntary sector or provide it with sufficient grants. Here I am wanting to work more closely with it and am talking about government funding for it—and the reception that I receive is not perhaps entirely overwhelming.
  Amendment No. 168 seeks to delete subsection (6) of Clause 87 which would prevent support given under Clause 86(1)(c) from being taken into account in comparing support given under Part VI with income support levels. Clause 86(1)(c) is a supplement by allowing support to be provided for specific costs which an asylum seeker may incur in connection with his claim for asylum, such as paying for postage stamps, telephone calls and possibly travelling. We do not envisage a separate allowance for such expenses but we wish to retain the option to pay travelling costs in individual cases to enable asylum seekers to attend interviews at IND. We are still considering the basis on which to fix the level at which support is to be given.
  We should look at all the heads of assistance that we give to an asylum seeker and we should consider the possibility of taking into account Clause 86(1)(c) support. By virtue of subsection (6) of Clause 87, such expenses are to be taken into account when comparing expenditure on essential living needs with income support levels, as is permitted by subsection (5).

  1121
  I shall be as brief as I can because I realise that the hour is now very late. Amendment No. 169 would prevent the Secretary of State taking account of support available from faith groups in the voluntary sector. I have already said a word or two about that. We are looking to continue and build up the excellent work in this field, to which I pay ready tribute. We do not expect charities to deplete their resources assisting asylum seekers. However, where there is assistance and expertise it is sensible to take them into account.
  There are many specialist groups set up precisely to assist the refugee community. They attract charitable donations for that specific purpose. It would be wrong to ignore what asylum seekers may receive from these sources. It is not necessary for an asylum seeker to be able to reject support offered by a third party and then look to the Home Office instead. We will not treat a charitable source as though it was available in its totality to every asylum seeker. We shall take it into account, as is proper, but it will be simply one factor among many; it will not be a determinative factor.
  There is no intention of assuming or presuming that asylum seekers can avail themselves of particular sources of assistance where this could be in doubt. The drafting is quite clear; it is support which is or might reasonably be expected to be available. If there is a dispute, the asylum seeker can put his point of view to the asylum support directorate or appeal to an asylum support adjudicator where he has been refused support.
  I see a developing, continuing partnership between the Home Office and the voluntary sector in providing support. We respect and value the charitable sector—not least because it brings a degree of independence and a degree perhaps of wider responsiveness than those who are engaged on a daily professional basis. So the daily professional basis has its virtues and value, as does the assistance we get—which we regard as complementary assistance—and with which we hope to work.
  Lord Alton of Liverpool: Perhaps the Minister will deal a little further with his final point about the independence of the charities. One of the points made very powerfully to us last week by the groups which came here is that they feel that if they were increasingly dependent on income from the Home Office—and I understand that this is a rehearsal of a point that is often made to the Minister—and given that often they have an advocacy role on behalf of asylum seekers and refugees, that independence may be compromised and their ability to speak on behalf of these vulnerable groups of people may be neutered if they are effectively co-opted as an arm of the state to administer services.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I take that point. I think that the independence of the voluntary sector is, and remains, intact. I do not think that it is impossible. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and I recently spent a very interesting half day, if not more, at NACRO headquarters. It is my present belief that the Home Office provides some funding to NACRO. I never detected in my dealings with it any lack of independent professionalism. Indeed, quite the opposite was the case.
  1122
  I single out that organisation merely as an illustration Its benefit is that, first, it knows what it is talking about: and secondly, despite the fact that it receives some funding from the Government, it still feels it right—and I agree with that—to criticise us when we have different views. That has been the experience of the past few years; NACRO is not alone in that respect.
  12.15 a.m.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: It being the witching hour, the Minister has suddenly turned part of the pumpkin into a fairy coach. It would be ungracious not to recognise that final miraculous moment of this long Committee stage. We thank him very much. There is a quotation from Max Weber that politics is the boring of hard boards. That seems to be an excellent description of the Committee stage of this Bill. We are most grateful to the Ministers for sticking it out and for showing such unending patience during what must have been a very hard day for them, and for the concessions that they have made, particularly with regard to victims of torture. They listened closely to what the Committee had to say. We are grateful and we should like to thank them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 163 not moved.]
  Clause 86 agreed to.
  Clause 87 [Supplemental]:
  [Amendments Nos. 164 to 168 not moved.]
  Clause 87 agreed to.
  Clause 88 [Secretary of State's scheme]:
  [Amendment No. 169 not moved.]
  Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 169A:
  Page 58, leave out line 35.
  The noble Earl said: To have to move the final amendment of the night is to draw the short straw. The only appropriate response to the short straw is the short speech. I shall try to oblige.
  The words that I seek to delete appear in Clause 88(7) dealing with regulations relating to applications for support. The subsection gives a power for the regulations to prescribe the circumstances in which an application may not be entertained—in fact, to cut people out of the claim to support with no indication as to how those powers will be used, no limit on the vires. It seems to me a rather draconian power, to be exercised by regulations, which are very difficult to challenge in this place. I beg to move.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The noble Earl's amendment seeks to probe the circumstances in which regulations will be made that permit the body not to entertain an application. Perhaps I may give some examples. One example is where a person has made a previous application, it has been rejected by the asylum support directorate, and possibly by the support adjudicator, and there has been no material change in the applicant's circumstances. Processing an application, even when it is without merit, takes time. All the details have to be gone into. Where there is no reason for

  1123
  collecting that information and going through it again, the asylum support directorate should not be required to go through it. One does occasionally receive reports of someone who vexatiously continues to reapply for some benefit in the hope of succeeding not on the basis of the merits of his case, but simply on the basis of wearing down the awarding body.
  In making the regulations governing the support scheme, we may also want to rely on this power in stipulating that applications from people who are plainly not eligible for support should not be entertained; for example, because the applicant is not an asylum seeker.
  In either of the instances that I have given, it would be open to the applicant to demonstrate that he is entitled to make an application, maintaining, for example, either that there has been a material change in circumstances, or that he is a genuine asylum seeker. If he made out that case, the application would have to be entertained. But it is perfectly sensible in a body of rules such as this that there are certain circumstances where a person should not be allowed to make either an application or another application. If he is allowed to do so, the system becomes clogged and those people who should be allowed to make applications will have to wait longer than they otherwise should.
  Earl Russell: The noble and learned Lord's answers, like the fortunes of the fictional Bishop of Ipswich, could have been worse. I shall not argue with any of the circumstances that he took up, but he would be a little
  1124
  optimistic to assume that the amendment is necessarily probing. I have considerable misgivings about the conferring of vires quite as sweeping as those entertained here. But, at this time of night, the amendment is probing. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 88 agreed to.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 170:
  After Clause 88, insert the following new clause—

  LEGAL ADVICE FOR ASYLUM SEEKERS
  (" . In providing or arranging for the provision of support for persons under Part VI, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to make arrangements with a view to ensuring that those persons have access to legal advice from a representative chosen by the asylum seeker.").
  The noble Lord said: Before the noble Lord, Lord Burlison, rises, it might be tidier if I refrained from moving Amendments Nos. 170 and 171.
  [Amendments Nos. 170 and 171 not moved.]
  Clauses 89, 90 and 91 agreed to.
  Lord Burlison: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  House resumed.
  House adjourned at twenty-one minutes past midnight.