Lords Sitting of 20 October 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 Lichfield.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland
Catherine Margaret Ashton, having been created Baroness Aston of Upholland, of St. Albans in the County of Hertfordshire, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Lord Levy and the Baroness Thornton.

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall
Genista Mary McIntosh, having been created Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall, of Hampstead in the London Borough of Camden, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Baroness Blackstone and the Lord Puttnam.
The Earl of Guilford The Earl of Guilford—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
Viscount Kemsley Viscount Kemsley—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his kinsman.
Lord Ebury Lord Ebury—Took the Oath.

NATO and the UN
2.50 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
In the event of a difference of view between NATO, the Security Council and the General Assembly of the United Nations, which body is the supreme authority, and on what basis Her Majesty's Government would make a decision as to military action.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, NATO and the United Nations are not competing organisations; nor are they part of an international hierarchy. Within the United Nations, the Security Council has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and resolutions of the council, taken under Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter, can have legally binding effect. Any decision to take military action will be based on an objective assessment of the factual circumstances at the time.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Does she agree that in recent experience there has been some confusion on that
1092
point? One wonders whether the question of where the particular responsibilities lie should not be more closely defined. Does my noble friend agree that a result of that confusion was that NATO took a leading role in the recent intervention in Yugoslavia, which will increasingly be perceived as mistaken, and ultimately shameful?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I cannot agree with my noble friend. It has been said in this House on a number of occasions that all it takes for evil to prevail is for good men and women to remain silent. Her Majesty's Government were not silent; neither were the 18 democratic countries which joined with us to address the tragedy happening in Kosovo.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I appreciate that this is not an easy question to answer, so I have given the Minister notice of it. During our debate on Friday, the Minister told the House that,
"The old ways of settling conflicts without resolving the underlying causes are no longer tenable".—[ official Report, 15/10/99; col. 731.]
She also spoke of the need for a new model to settle conflicts in our increasingly interdependent world. Will she take the opportunity today to define the Government's vision for that new model in the specific context of the authority of NATO, the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as I said on Friday, the world is faced with a new challenge: with intra-state conflict more than inter-state conflict. To that end, there is now a vigorous debate at the UN to try to decide how best to address that issue in terms of humanitarian intervention. I can give the noble Lord only a very general answer, but I shall be happy to write to him more specifically if and when there are greater details than I am able to reveal now.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, with all those considerations in mind, can the Government give the House an assurance that the position of the United Kingdom in the Security Council will remain undisturbed?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can.

Mental Health Care: GP Training
2.53 p.m.
Lord Laming Lord Laming asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to improve the training of general practitioners in response to the growing number of patients with mental health problems who consult them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, appropriate training is currently available for all general practitioners to help them meet the mental health needs of their patients. In addition, we are

1093
introducing a modernised system of GP training early next year which will ensure that all trainee general practitioners receive an educational needs assessment at the beginning of their general practice training. That will ensure that a range of appropriate experiences will be on offer.
Lord Laming: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful reply. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to congratulate my noble friend most warmly on his appointment as Minister. I feel sure that all Members of your Lordships' House will feel that this promotion is well-deserved, and we wish him well.
Does the Minister agree that the vast majority of people who experience mental health problems are now cared for by the primary care teams? Is he aware of the recently published survey initiated by the Mental After Care Association which indicates that GPs spend as much as 30 per cent of their time on mental health problems, and yet many of them feel ill-equipped to deal with that work, especially when it is complicated by a greater misuse of drugs?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his warm welcome. Of course, he is right. Most mental health problems are dealt with by primary care: by GPs, by other support staff and by community psychiatric nurses. I believe that the survey which he mentioned is important and it is one that we are considering very carefully. However, I am satisfied that the appropriate arrangements are in place to ensure the training of GPs to undertake this role, both at undergraduate level in training to be a GP and in the crucially important area of continuing professional development once they have become GPs.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Laming, in congratulating the Minister on his appointment. The noble Lord, Lord Laming, mentioned the survey of the Mental After Care Association which did, indeed, raise some worrying issues about the training of GPs. In the light of that survey, have the Minister and his department made an assessment of the implications of Professor Graham Thorneycroft's national service framework proposal? In particular, have they considered what further resources in terms of training and recruitment will be required? Will the £700 million over three years promised by the Government be adequate? In addition, will sufficient community psychiatric nurses be available in the light of the current major shortages? Do the Government have accurate figures in that respect?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, again I thank the noble Lord. We are not aware of any particular problems in relation to community psychiatric nurses. However, a survey is being undertaken at the moment and we hope to have the interim results by March 2000. I believe that it is worth making the point that community psychiatric nurses play a very important leadership role. It is an attractive role which is very
1094
helpful in relation to future recruitment. I am glad that the noble Lord mentioned the £700 million extra resources which we are putting into the health service over the next three years for mental health services. That will undoubtedly help to underpin the development of a national service framework, which in itself will underpin the integration of both primary and specialist services.
Lord Rea: My Lords, as a former general practitioner, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Laming, on the relevance of his Question. It is not only a question of knowledge per se but of attitude. Like many of us, some doctors find emotional problems difficult to handle as well as extremely time-consuming. Therefore, is not a team approach, as was mentioned earlier, the most suitable way to handle such problems? A general practitioner should be able accurately to spot a problem and then refer the patient to another member of the team, such as might be done, for example, in a primary care group. Is my noble friend aware of the very good work that is being done by the Royal College of General Practitioners' primary care mental health education unit and also in conjunction with the Royal College of Psychiatrists?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, first, I agree with my noble friend that the Royal College of General Practitioners has done sterling work over 40 years in helping to drive up the quality of primary care services and particularly the work of general practitioners. Of course, some people who have mental health problems present major challenges to GPs. It is important that we have the right structure to enable the service to deal with those effectively. That is what the national service framework is about. It recognises the pivotal role of primary care and that GPs and support workers, whom my noble friend mentioned, have a major role to play. But it also develops protocols for the effective referral of people with severe mental health problems to specialist services, and it enables specialist services to provide support and advice to general practitioners in their general work.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in some health districts mental health teams go from hospitals into GP practices or other health services in order to work together with the GPs? That supports the GPs and they learn on the job. Is the Minister aware that that happens in the Yorkshire Dales?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, if I was not aware, I certainly am now. I am very glad to hear it. One can develop effective services in a whole range of ways. The working together of different sectors of the health service and the seconding of mental health service to primary care are important examples. Primary care groups enable GPs collectively to commission the provision of such services. They will be able to set the quality and agree on the kind of staff

1095
that they want to help them. As a result of using that method I am sure that we shall see a much more effective and integrated service in the future.
Lord McNair: My Lords, does the Minister realise that people who are treated for mental illness are not first screened to see whether their symptoms are the result of a physical condition or imbalance, particularly a nutritional imbalance? Does he believe that that screening is essential? Why does it not happen? Surely, that is more important than training doctors as psychiatrists. We need to train doctors to be better doctors.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord always puts an interesting point of view. I have no doubt that when a GP carries out an initial assessment of a patient it is important that he has the right tools to be able to do so effectively. It is well known that patients sometimes present themselves to GPs with physical ailments when in fact ailments of the mind are the problem. The effort being undertaken, particularly into continued professional development for GPs, will enable us to address many such issues and ensure that GPs are kept up to date with developments, whether they are newly qualified or have been in practice for 30 years.
Baroness David: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether GPs have enough counsellors to help them deal with patients with mental health problems?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my noble friend is certainly right to point to the value of counsellors, as other noble Lords have pointed to the value of community psychiatric nurses. There is no doubt that professional counsellors who have been well trained can provide an effective service within the GP setting. I believe that the work we are undertaking in developing a national service framework will enable us to quantify better whether there are enough counsellors. I also believe that primary care groups will be in a better position to commission those services and to enable there to be a balance of people available throughout the GP practices within the primary care group.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, is the Minister aware that several charities have extremely extensive lists that could be useful to GPs. I refer particularly to SANE Line—I declare an interest as a director of SANE—which has a list that could be used by GPs for every circumstance that we are talking about today.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I pay tribute to the work of SANE and indeed to the noble Lord and his interest in this subject. When talking about support staff and the availability of support to primary care it is important to remember that the voluntary sector has a crucial role to play.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, is the Minister aware that much mental illness is successfully treated by natural
1096
and complementary methods of medicine? Will the Minister confirm that it is essential that there should be adequate training for doctors in such forms of medicine in the undergraduate curriculum?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the evidence is that medical practitioners increasingly are prepared to look at the opportunities that effective complementary medicine has to offer.

Kosovo Liberation Army
3.3 p.m.
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their view of proposals to legitimate the former Kosovo Liberation Army and to make it the national army of Kosovo.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we would not support any plans to perpetuate the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). We support the international community's efforts to demilitarise and transform the KLA. Part of that process is the establishment of the Kosovo Protection Corps. That will be a civilian emergency service agency, run by the UN Mission in Kosovo and supervised by KFOR. It will have no role in law enforcement. It is not an army-in-waiting or a national guard for Kosovo.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, although it is reassuring to hear that the protection force will come into being, will it be large enough, firm enough, mobile enough and so on to cope with a KLA which has now declared itself to be the national provisional government? The KLA is taking over towns and villages and expelling Serbs, gypsies and almost everybody else, which was not the idea when we took its part in the first place.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Lord's description of what is happening at the moment in Kosovo. It is clear that there is a real need to restore civil society. The KPC is an agency that will be used for that purpose. Few people believe that this is an easy challenge to overcome, but the KPC will make a considerable contribution to it.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that a police force is being trained in Kosovo? Can she also say whether that police force will include Serbs and Albanians who will be trained to work together?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can confirm that. It is extremely important that any reconstruction programme involves all parts of the Kosovan community. Part of our hope and aspiration is that we shall find a medium through which all participants can play a part.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I welcome the Minister's reply, but can she say a little mare about the areas of Kosovo where the KLA has played a part

1097
in the driving out of some minority groups? There is some concern in the House, in particular about what has happened to Romanis and to Serbs who still live in Kosovo.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I do not have specific details in relation to that matter today. However, I undertake to write to the noble Baroness to answer her question.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that there is no question of revising or annulling the Security Council's resolution which required the demilitarisation of the KLA?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Absolutely, my Lords. The KLA has complied with all the conditions that have been laid on it. Of course, we cannot guarantee that absolutely every cache of arms has been discovered or disclosed because extremists will always find a way. However, we can assure the House that the KLA has complied with all the conditions that have been set.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the report from the Macedonian news agency that Albania is to open an embassy in Kosovo? Does she think that that will help or hinder a peaceful settlement?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I must confess that I am not directly aware of that. However, one can see that any rapprochement should be encouraged.
Lord Judd: My Lords, my noble friend has said that the internal security force will be accountable to the UN administration. Does she not agree that any security arrangements, internal or external, should be accountable as soon as possible to political institutions within Kosovo and to the Kosovar people themselves? Can she assure the House that the Government are doing everything possible to promote the circumstances in which genuine, free elections can take place in Kosovo before long?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can assure the House that all the efforts of the international community are directed towards re-establishing civil society in an appropriately cohesive way in Kosovo and maintaining the instruments of good government.

Scotland v. England Soccer Arrangements
3.10 p.m.
Lord McNally Lord McNally asked Her Majesty's Government:
What special consultations and measures they plan to ensure that the Euro 2000 games between Scotland and England in Glasgow and London in November are both safe and successful.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, I am taking a close interest in the arrangements. All
1098
agencies associated with them will be in close contact during the build-up to the matches. They include the respective football associations and the Metropolitan, Strathclyde and British Transport police forces and the National Criminal Intelligence Service. The aim throughout will be to ensure that spectators can enjoy both matches in a safe and secure environment as they did when the two teams met at Wembley during Euro 96.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I thank the Minister for those details. However, does he agree that the eyes of the world will be on those two games and that if things went badly wrong our chances of staging the World Cup in 2006 or the Olympic Games in 2012 would be severely damaged? In those circumstances, might it be a good idea to call together sports editors, particularly those of the so-called "red tops" in both England and Scotland and suggest that they do not spend between now and the games whipping up the kind of hostilities and hatred which could well bring about hooliganism and which undoubtedly they would all condemn the day after it occurred?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McNally. It would be much better if the press and media generally spent time focusing on the games. If we have a message to deliver to the editors today it is that we want them to encourage responsible behaviour by spectators. We want them to encourage passion, pride and perhaps some patriotism but more than anything else we want them to encourage the good behaviour of all involved.
I do not see it as inevitable that there should be bad behaviour at either of those games or the events surrounding them. Members of your Lordships' House will want to encourage good behaviour and we must do all we can in our communications to ensure that that is the case. I am sure that all those on the "terraces" opposite and the "terraces" behind will do their best to whip up the right fervour and enthusiasm.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, in view of the exceptionally high international profile of the two matches, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, set out, will the Government assist the football authorities financially with the policing and security of the matches, or charge them a large sum of money?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is our belief that the football authorities are well resourced to meet the expectations of the public which are quite rightly placed upon them. I am sure that with our active encouragement they will do the job in hand.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I declare an interest as vice-chairman of the Government's Football Task Force. Does my noble friend agree with me that to talk of racism in the context of ticket application arrangements in relation to these two matches is both unhelpful and nonsensical? Indeed, it undermines the efforts that serious people in football are making to kick racism out of the game. In view of

1099
the fact that it is a legal requirement on both Scottish and English authorities to segregate fans at both games, should we not be applauding their efforts to keep the fans apart through segregation rather than belittle them in the way that the tabloid newspapers and others have done?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, my noble friend makes a good point. We do not want to trivialise matters. We believe that segregation is right at football matches. We do not believe that the arrangements that have been made in any way, shape or form breach the Race Relations Act, although the matter is one for the Commission for Racial Equality. It has been referred to them.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the best way to keep order at football matches is to keep down the amount of drink consumed before and during the game?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is a well known fact that there is an association between the consumption of alcohol and occasional outbreaks of disorder surrounding football matches. We can achieve much by encouragement and that is what we shall attempt to do in this instance.
Lord Peston: My Lords, since safety is alluded to in the Question, can my noble friend say who is responsible for explaining to the two teams what the role of the spherical object placed in the middle of the pitch is? Who can explain that that is what is meant to be kicked rather than members of the other side?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am beginning to feel like a referee. My noble friend is right. It is the round object in which we should be most interested and getting it into the right net, whether one is a Scotland or an England fan. Let us hope that the correct outcome on the day comes to pass. However, footballers in general have an important role to play in setting a good example. I hope that all of those who play association football between now and the next two England-Scotland matches bear that very much in mind. Their behaviour on the pitch reflects the behaviour of the fans and colours the flavour of the game. We should take every opportunity we can to encourage good behaviour among football players and football fans alike.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I greatly welcome the spirit and the content of the Minister's answers today. My initial Question referred to the role of the print media. But many of the target audience—the young audience—watch programmes like "Soccer AM", and "Match of the Day" and listen to Radio 5. Would it not be beneficial to encourage the television and broadcasting authorities to join, as he suggested, in getting the message over that hooliganism is stupid and that all true fans of football should disown the hooligans?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that is the case. My 10-year old son reminds me of that each and every
1100
week when he listens to, and watches, various programmes and hears the messages that go out to football fans countrywide. We recently introduced the new legislation relating to football offences. I am pleased to say that that legislation received widespread publicity. Indeed, I have received complaints to that effect from fans throughout the country who read my article in their local football magazine, so I know it to be true.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, folio wing the question relating to alcohol, would it not be possible to shut the pubs in the vicinity and give the publicans a free ticket to the match?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am rapidly becoming responsible for a whole range of new policy. I am not sure that this is quite within my remit.
All noble Lords will appreciate that matters relating to the consumption of alcohol, the opening times of pubs and so forth are operational issues. The issue is one on which the police, football authorities, local authorities and all others concerned keep a careful eye in assessing the risk of the outbreak of disorder. It is an important message and it has been conveyed.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, it may be helpful if I explain the procedure for the two Motions on hybridity which are the next two Motions on the Order Paper. It has been agreed among the usual channels and the movers of the two Motions that the Motion in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, and that in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, will be debated together this afternoon.
It may be convenient for the House if I outline the procedure to be followed when dealing with a joint debate of this nature. The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, will move his Motion. The noble Lord, Lord Clifford, will then speak to his Motion. A debate will then take place jointly on the two Motions. Any noble Lord who wishes to speak on either Motion should do so at that point. The two Motions will be disposed of separately, with that of the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, coming first. There will then be no need for further debate before the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, is taken. I hope that clarifies the procedure.

House of Lords Bill
3.18 p.m.
The Duke of Montrose The Duke of Montrose rose to move, That the Bill be referred to the Examiners in respect of Clause 1.
The noble Duke said: My Lords, we have lived with this Bill on and off for a great many months, but for all the simplicity of which the Government were so proud when it was introduced, it can take some time to consider all the possible implications.
My Motion is that the Bill is hybrid in respect of Clause 1, because that is where the Government attempt to create separate classes within the Peers who sit in Parliament. At various other points in the Bill there are other issues which affect the private rights of Members within that class, so the Bill as drafted does not seem to me to answer all the points that are required if it is to avoid this further scrutiny.
Your Lordships will by now be aware of the opinion of Mr Leolin Price QC which has been placed in the Library, supporting this view. I have also heard an opinion from Mr John Lofthouse to the same effect. I hardly need to remind your Lordships that the definition of hybridity that is contained in Erskine May is that hybrid Bills are public Bills which are considered to affect specific private interests in a manner different from the private or local interests of other persons or bodies of the same category. The hybrid procedure is designed to protect private interests from unfair invasion or restriction by legislation passed by the legislature at the behest of the Government or the Executive; that is to say, public Bills—this is a public Bill.
The words of that ruling are those of Mr Speaker Hylton-Foster, given during the proceedings on the Bill for the London Government Act 1963 in the course of a debate in another place. He accepted that the test for deciding whether to refer the Bill to the Examiners was that,
"if it be possible for the view to be taken that this Bill is a hybrid Bill, it ought to go to the examiners. There must not be a doubt about it".—[Official Report, Commons, 10/12/62; col. 45.]
I suggest that that is the test for this House today: not to make a decision on whether the Bill is hybrid, but to decide if it is beyond doubt not hybrid.
Perhaps the clearest guide on this subject can be found in the report of the Examiners on the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977. The Examiners noted with palpable regret the erosion of the test for hybridity, which took place due to rulings from other Speakers, but still applied it. The eroded practice allows the Government to choose their own class and, so long as they keep all who are in that class in the Bill and put no one from outside the class into the Bill, they will steer clear of hybridity.
Applying that test, I look at the Bill and it may be prima facie hybrid for two reasons. The Bill in its preamble—and, again, in Clause 1—adopts the expression of "membership of the House of Lords". In the Committee for Privileges on Monday and Tuesday, the Government explained to us, with great patience and perspicacity, that the reason that we are all here is the on-going effect of our Writ of Summons. In that committee, we even heard the assertion by Anson that, in answering a Writ of Summons and in taking a seat, every peerage is perfected.
It has probably not escaped your Lordships that these Writs of Summons, apart from the phrase of nomenclature, are the same and ask for the fulfilment of the same duties and responsibilities, irrespective of the reason or route by which the right to receive the
1102
Writ has been achieved. All, instead of just being Peers of the Realm, become Lords of Parliament. This Bill, by wishing to deal with membership of the House of Lords, is dealing with Lords of Parliament, including all the rights and privileges that evolve therefrom.
We are all well aware that from the earliest times in Parliament all Peers are equal. I have had my attention drawn to a statement by the 17th century lawyer, Sir Edward Coke, reiterating that,
"in the judgment of law any of the … degrees of nobility are peers one with another".
I should like to ask the Examiners to consider that a distinction made between Lords of Parliament during the currency of their Writs of Summons is a condition that is not germane to the Bill. This is not to say that the Government can never consider any distinction between Peers because, on the expiry of the Writ of Summons, we all revert to the class of peerage with which we have been endowed.
The other point on which some hybridity might occur is on the question of the inclusion of the titles of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and of the noble Earl, Lord Chester. Those two titles are not hereditary titles; they are titles that are given for life. If the Government wish by such a clause to include His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and the noble Earl, Lord Chester, it is surely possible that they could then include anyone and make the Bill even more hybrid.
I turn now to the question of private interests. I do not need to detain your Lordships for long because during the Committee stage of the Bill I brought forward an amendment relating to the Lord High Constable of Scotland. I then received letters from the Clerk to the Public Bill office telling me that to introduce an element like this would render the Bill hybrid. Therefore, I take it that the Clerks have ruled that there are private interests involved.
There is one specific element relating to private interests about which I think your Lordships should be aware. By removing Peers from this House at the time of the passage of this Bill, anyone so removed will then lose his or her right to vote in elections until the next register comes into force. The question may seem slightly academic until we consider the fact that we are now facing a by-election in South Kensington and this might affect the rights of several Peers in that regard.
In raising these matters before the House, I am not seeking to be difficult or obstructive. One of the prime duties of this House, as recognised in the Government's White Paper, is that this House has an obligation to review and amend ill considered and badly drafted legislation.
This Bill is one of the most fundamental innovations that has been seen in our constitution for some time. We are all responsible for seeing that it falls within the structure of our historical constitutional processes. If there are any errors or anomalies, it is best for them to be considered now rather than left to litigation after the Bill has become law.
I am merely pointing out that starting from the original Bill, as first presented to this House, there was bound to be an element of hybridity for consideration. I do so supported by expert and constitutional opinion. Therefore, under the rules of the House, the Bill must be referred to the Examiners.
Moved, That the Bill be referred to the Examiners in respect of Clause 1.—(The Duke of Montrose.)
3.30 p.m.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, in this Motion.
Leading counsel, Leolin Price QC, advises me that the Writ of Summons received by an elected Member of Parliament assures that person of certain "private rights"; namely, to attend, speak and vote in the House of Commons. Our Writ of Summons assures us of the same private rights and this statement has no effect on the findings of the Committee for Privileges which ruled on the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew.
Hybridity is concerned with making, in a public Bill, a distinction between the manner in which the Bill affects the private interests of one or more members of a class and the manner in which it affects the private interests of other persons in the same class. I shall be concentrating on further anomalies which render the Bill hybrid, by which it must be referred to the Examiners.
As your Lordships will see, Clause 5 introduces on to the face of the Bill provisions to allow for separate voting rights to be introduced for certain life Peers in the event of a Bill being presented to Parliament extending the duration of Parliament beyond five years. This is fundamentally a hybrid clause. Those Peers who are summoned to this House during the same Parliament which considers measures of extension of the duration of a Parliament will be prevented from voting on this Bill. This is quite clearly applying different treatment to some Peers within the same category when exercising their rights as Peers to vote in this House. On that ground alone, the Bill is hybrid and must be referred to the Examiners.
I would add my concern, and, I hope, the concern of all parliamentarians, about the general principle of changing a fundamental cornerstone of the constitutional arrangements of this country through the mechanism of this Bill. The inclusion of Clause 5 is a classic example of provisions rushed into a Bill without sufficient thought as to their consequences. Clause 5 will, if passed, bring on to the statute book some of the most radical changes to the constitution of the United Kingdom.
It is wholly misguided for such an important safeguard to be placed upon the statute book with so little thought, discussion and consultation as to its consequences. If any constitutional safeguards require further contemplation by wiser counsel, they are those measures which prevent the abuse of Parliament and the potential prevention of the right of the electorate to choose by whom and how it is governed. This clause
1104
is one such measure. These rights should not be dealt with in such a peremptory manner. I submit to your Lordships that such a measure should better be considered by the Royal Commission, rather than rushed through in a vehicle such as this Bill.
I turn to Clause 2(1) and 2(2). There is further introduction of hybridity into the Bill under these clauses. The hereditary Peers form part of the category or class of Peers as explained by the noble Duke. The hereditary Peers are affected by this Bill in that the Bill distinguishes the rights of some 90 hereditary Peers from the other hereditary Peers. Those 90 will retain their private rights to receive a Writ of Summons to sit, attend and vote in the House of Lords. The remainder of the hereditary Peers expelled from the House will have such rights removed. There is no way that those who have drafted this Bill can include these distinctions within the Bill without rendering it hybrid. There is therefore a clear difference in the way in which certain members of the hereditary peerage are treated from all other Peers. This renders the Bill hybrid.
The Bill goes on further to distinguish the rights of two hereditary Peers, the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, as hereditary Earl Marshal of England, and the noble Marquess, Lord Cholmondeley, as hereditary successor to the position of Lord Great Chamberlain. The fact that these two Peers are clearly identified in the Bill as receiving completely different treatment, by virtue of their hereditary status, from the other 90 Peers who will be selected by other means, such as that of election, makes the Bill hybrid.
The argument that the Bill distinguishes the offices, rather than the holders of the office, does not apply. The title Earl Marshal of England is hereditary to the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, just as are all his other titles, Arundel for one. The position of Lord Great Chamberlain, while not a hereditary title limited to one Peer, like that of the Earl Marshal, passes nevertheless between three hereditary Peers: the Marquess of Cholmondeley, the Marquess of Lincolnshire and the Earl of Ancaster, who succeed to it in turn by virtue of their hereditary titles alone.
By including these two Peers the Bill cannot avoid treating two Peers within the category of hereditary Peers in a different manner from the rest of the hereditary Peers in three ways. First, they are different from the 90 Peers who retain their place in the House of Lords by other means, such as election. Secondly, they are different from the 90 Peers who will retain their rights as hereditary Peers only for the interim period until phase two of the reform of the House of Lords is introduced. Thirdly, they are different from all the hereditary Peers, as they are retaining their rights as hereditary Peers to sit in the House of Lords, to receive a Summons and to debate and vote in the House by virtue of their position as hereditary Peers, while the Bill seeks to remove such rights from all other members of that category.
Further, the House should note that there are no provisions in the Bill to allow the holders of the great offices of state of Scotland—we have heard this from his grace the Duke—to be treated in a similar fashion

1105
to the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain. They are left among the broad mass of hereditary Peers either to be included among the 90 or among the remainder of the hereditary Peers expelled by this Bill. This omission introduces differences between the methods in which some holders of the great offices of state who hold duties to the House of Lords are to be treated, and thus, on its own, renders the Bill hybrid.
The Scottish offices relate to duties to the House of Lords as part of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. These duties do not arise out of their relationship to Westminster; nor do they refer to the Scottish Parliament currently in Edinburgh. The legal position is such that, if Parliament were to be summoned to sit in Scotland, the duties to the House of Lords summoned there would be carried out by those who hold the offices of state in Scotland, such as the Lord High Constable of Scotland, and the noble Earl, Lord Erroll. They would not be carried out by the Earl Marshal or the Lord Great Chamberlain. There must be reflection of this within the Bill. The fact that there is not renders the Bill hybrid.
Your Lordships' House will also be aware that the Clerks considered amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, which introduced a specific allocation of Peers relative to different parties within the House. They found that this affected the private interests of some hereditary Peers and advised that the Examiners would have to consider the Bill in the light of this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, withdrew the amendment so it has not had to be referred to the Examiners, but, in the light of such a finding, it is clear that the effect of the clauses which I have mentioned is to render the Bill similarly hybrid.
I turn to Clause 7. If the argument is raised that certain elements of the Bill's hybridity can be drained away by providing that the identification of those treated differently—that is to say, the 90 Peers and the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain—be made by statutory instrument or some other device, I would submit to your Lordships that, first, the statutory instrument is itself a form of legislation and is therefore subject to the rule of hybridity. Secondly, it is not possible to change the character of a Bill by an instrument which is not legislative in character, for example, through the Standing Orders of the House of Lords. Your Lordships' House will recall that it has determined that any affirmative statutory instrument should be subject to the Private Bill procedure. It has resolved that it has unfettered freedom to vote on any subordinate legislation submitted for its consideration. It is entirely proper for your Lordships' House to exercise its rights with regard to these measures.
Clause 7(4)(b) provides that the statutory instruments under this section are to be introduced as negative instruments. Given that this Bill is hybrid, it has to go through the affirmative procedure for statutory instruments. This should be reflected on the face of the Bill. It is to be hoped that, on a matter of such constitutional importance, the Government will
1106
not seek to impose any statutory instruments through the negative procedure and that this clause should therefore be amended.
The terms of Clause 7(4) are enormously wide. The notion that an order may modify the effect of any enactment or any provision made under any enactment gives the Secretary of State in effect unprecedented powers to change pieces of legislation. This has only been done once before, in Section 51(1) of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1999.
There is also a desire to provide "not counting in the 90" treatment for exceptions who are members of the Privy Council, 28 of whom are hereditary Peers. The appropriateness of that is a matter of judgment. If adopted, it too would add another element of hybridity.
Your Lordships will be aware that one of the functions of this House is as a balance against the over-extension and abuse of power by another place. This Bill introduces some far-reaching changes into the constitution which have perhaps not been fully grasped by your Lordships. It does so in a Bill which I submit is hybrid, and for which the proper course is submission to the Examiners.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, the Motion in the name of my noble friend the Duke of Montrose is confined to Clause 1 of the Bill. It does not seek to undermine the Bill, nor does it set out to undermine the Weatherill amendment within the Bill. If my noble friend's Motion were now to be referred to the Examiners, one of two different outcomes would result before Third Reading. First, if the Examiners ruled that Clause 1 was not hybrid, then no amendment would be required to Clause 1 as it is currently drafted. Secondly, if the Examiners ruled that Clause 1 was hybrid, then the Government could introduce at Third Reading an amendment to address and resolve the elements of hybridity.
Two other inferences follow from this consideration of how the process of referral would work. First, Clause 1 of the Bill can only benefit from now being referred to the Examiners. Before Third Reading the Examiners will either give the reassurance that Clause 1 is in order or else, by ruling otherwise, alert the Government to resolve the elements of hybridity at Third Reading. Secondly, the only way in which Clause 1 stands to suffer is if it were not now to be referred to the Examiners. The reason is very simple. If Clause 1 of the Bill becomes a section of an Act without referral to the Examiners, the allegation will continue that it was hybrid in the first place. Consequently, Clause 1 of the Bill will not command respect. If we wish it to do so, and if we wish to co-operate with the Bill and the Weatherill amendment within it, we should refer Clause 1 to the Examiners today.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I listened with great care to the speeches made by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, and the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of

1107
Chudleigh. I was very interested indeed, in anticipation, to think what it was they were going to say.
It is much too late for this issue to be raised. We are not only at the 11th hour but at the 55th minute of the 11th hour—with Third Reading scheduled for next Tuesday—when, suddenly, along come the noble Duke and the noble Lord with an allegation that it is a hybrid Bill and that therefore proceedings should stop. The noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, even said that insufficient time, consultation and discussion had been given to these issues. The issues have been throttled to death—not over the past five years but some would say over the past 18. The idea that somehow or other there is anything new to be said about the reforms of your Lordships' House, as proposed by the Government, strikes me as fanciful.
As I understand it, this is not a judicial proceeding. It is a decision that the House has to take as to whether the Bill is hybrid. If the House takes that view, then the Bill goes to the Examiners. At the beginning of the Bill this issue was raised; at various stages during the passage of the Bill this issue was raised. It has been debated by the House now on a number of occasions. With great respect to noble Lord, to turn up now and to give us a dissertation upon the position of the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain does not help the passage of this legislation.
I am not by nature a suspicious man. Indeed, I look for virtue in all the people I meet and with whom I discuss issues. Were I a suspicious man I should have to say that the thought might just cross my mind that the objective of this exercise is not to put a defective Bill right; it is not to deal with the minority interests of one group or other of a class in the House. It is to delay the legislation yet further. With great respect, I would not be prepared to accept that. Therefore, if it comes to a vote, I hope that the House will reject the two Motions, and by a large majority.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will find some virtue in me which he may not expect to find. It has not been his past experience, I believe.
There is another extremely important aspect to the issue which has not been touched upon. Your Lordships can take either the advice of my noble friend the Duke of Montrose and consider whether the Bill is definitely not hybrid, or your Lordships can consider what is the purpose of the hybridity procedure. The purpose of the hybrid Bill procedure is to provide for private individuals to protect their individual rights when they are threatened by a piece of legislation which treats others of the same class differently. It is directed to the private interest. For noble Lords—myself included—to stand on the Bill on a matter of private interest is entirely wrong headed. It goes far beyond that.
We are considering the national interest. Any interests that private individuals have should be subsumed in the collective wish. With the greatest respect to my noble friend, the House has devoted a great deal of time to considering the national interest
1108
and the collective interests of individual hereditary Peers. My private interest in this matter has long ceased to interest me. I deplore and decry the removal from the nation of a great resource of free wisdom, advice and service—but that is not what the debate is about. The debate is about whether I may join the queue in the Committee Corridor to put my view to the Examiners as to whether I am being defrauded of something which is intrinsically important to me. Even if it was, I should not take that opportunity. The national interest must prevail. That is what we should debate, and it cannot be done through the hybridity procedure.
3.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am not sure whether I agree totally with my noble friend Lord Elton. I have always thought that the Bill was hybrid. I have a great deal of sympathy for the two Motions before the House.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, says that the procedure is merely a delaying tactic. I do not think it is. If one has a Bill of this nature altering the constitution of the country which has been in place for some 600 years, it is right that Parliament should consider it in all its aspects.
We are all here by virtue of the Writ of Summons. I hope that the noble Lord will say that that was decided the other day. It fell to be decided whether the Writ of Summons was appropriate in the Bill, and the Law Lords decided that it was appropriate. I congratulate the noble Lord the Lord Advocate on his, as usual, very skilful portrayal of, no doubt, a very good case. I was also glad that he did not follow the example of footballers by going around throwing his hands in the air and saying "Aren't I clever", or of Formula 1 racing drivers by squirting champagne over everyone. He used his normal dignity, which was very agreeable. It is a pity that others do not follow his suit in that respect.
It is a great pity that the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, could not come out with something a little more encouraging. She said:
"This whole exercise has been an expensive charade. The committee should never have been asked to hear the case, but the Tories have abused their majority in the House of Lords to force it through".
With the greatest respect to the noble Baroness's position as the Leader of the House, she was quite wrong. There was a degree of very severe apprehension contained in the question about the Writ of Summons. Many people considered that it was wrong. It was quite right that the Committee for Privileges should have discussed the matter. It was quite right that it should come to the conclusion that it did. Everyone therefore was satisfied. One was always taught to be a good loser. I wish the noble Baroness would be a good winner. No one was trying to destroy the Bill; all we wanted to know was that the Bill was right.
Here we go again on this Motion. We are all here by virtue of the Writ of Summons. Like my noble friend the Duke of Montrose, I return to the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industry Bill, in which I participated a

1109
little. The Examiners decided that that Bill was hybrid because some ship repairing industries were being nationalised and others were not. Those which were being nationalised said, "This is not fair. We are being nationalised." Those that were not being nationalised said, "This is not fair because those which are being nationalised will have a whole lot of public money and we will not." Therefore there was a dispute over a single category of people. It was decided that the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill was therefore hybrid.
We are in a very similar position with this Bill. We are all here by a Writ of Summons. The writ lasts for the lifetime of a Parliament, as everyone knows. One gets a Writ of Summons; one comes to your Lordships' House. The writ has done its job and you are here. If the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate were kind enough to ask me to stay with him in Wales—he has not actually done so but it is an invitation to which I look forward with heady anticipation—
Viscount Cranborne: The Attorney-General.
Earl Ferrers: The Attorney-General. I do apologise. The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General.
The Attorney-General (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I do not live in Wales.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is terrible. The Attorney-General does not live in Wales. I suppose he has crossed the border to find more lucrative employment elsewhere.
When he does return to his native land, and if he should invite me to stay with him, which I shall accept with alacrity, I will go to Paddington and buy a ticket with him. Of course the noble and learned Lord will travel first class so I will be obliged to do the same. It would be quite rough if I was thrown off the train at Swindon while the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General went on to Cardiff. My ticket would entitle me to remain on the train right through to Cardiff and it would be wrong to be thrown off at Swindon. But that is exactly what is happening in relation to the Bill. Certain hereditary Peers have come to this place and have subjected themselves to the Writ of Summons which allows them to attend through the lifetime of a Parliament. Then suddenly the Government say to those Peers, "Oh no, you lot get tipped off halfway through, while others of you are permitted to stay". I should have thought that was a classic example of hybridity.
That is my view, but I am not a lawyer or anything like as grand as an Examiner. For that reason, I shall defer to all of them. However, there are those who feel that this is a matter that ought to be examined, and indeed my feelings run firmly in support of the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose. But there is a snag, and the snag is that time is short. If the matter were to be referred to the Examiners, people would need time to prepare their cases and there would be a delay. The Bill
1110
would overshoot the end of the parliamentary Session. Others would not understand what is happening, and the noble Baroness the Leader of the House would—
Noble Lords: Bushwhack!
Earl Ferrers:—Bushwhack, to repeat the word used by my noble friend Lord Cranborne, hereditary Peers for having interfered with the Government's programme. Those outside the House would not understand what was going on. However, even if that could be overcome, once the Bill had overshot the parliamentary Session the Government would say, "All right, we shall deal with that by bringing forward the present Bill under the Parliament Act without the Weatherill amendment". We would get nowhere.
It is my conclusion, even though I regret it because my natural feelings are with the two noble Lords who have put forward the Motion before us, that for those reasons it would not be wise to submit this to the Examiners. Although I think it deserves to be submitted and my heart goes with them, I shall not be able to support my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Clifford.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that these Motions have come before us far too late, not merely for the practical reasons just advanced by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, but because of a matter of basic principle.
Noble Lords should bear in mind one important fact: the practice of referring Bills which are thought to be hybrid to a Select Committee is a matter of the practice of the House and not a matter of basic law or statute. Thus the House can always decide that, although a Bill appears to be hybrid, it is not to be referred to a Select Committee but is to be dealt with in the same way as an ordinary public Bill.
If it was thought by anyone that the Bill before us was hybrid in its original form, it has been open to that person to move that fact ever since the Bill received its Second Reading in the other place 10 months ago. If anyone thought that the Bill was not hybrid originally but became hybrid by reason of an amendment such as the Weatherill amendment, it has been open to them to move that ever since the amendment was passed over five months ago. Neither of those actions have been taken until today. Instead, the House has proceeded, even though it is clear that hybridity has been mentioned at every stage.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has said in all frankness that he has always thought the Bill was hybrid. For that reason, it has always been open to him to move a Motion to that effect. However, instead of any Motion for referral being brought forward, the Bill has, as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said, been considered at some length during its subsequent stages. Because the House went on with its consideration of the Bill, notwithstanding the fact that hybridity was in the air, in my view it is absolutely clear that the House has decided by implication that it wishes to proceed with the Bill in the normal way it

1111
would proceed with a public Bill, regardless of the question of hybridity. It is far too late to change that now and these Motions should therefore be rejected.
Like many of your Lordships, I consider this to be a mistaken and a bad Bill. I have always considered that it was wrong to introduce a measure that dealt only with abolition without any proposals of what should be put in its place. I venture to suspect that in the hidden closets of their homes, members of the Government may now share that view, although I am not optimistic enough to expect the noble Baroness the Leader of the House to confess that when she comes to reply. But whatever view one has of the Bill, surely it is wrong to suggest that this House should misuse the procedures of the House by introducing Motions of this kind at this late stage to get rid of or to embarrass a Bill merely because one heartily dislikes it.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, Motions have been moved with obvious sincerity and conviction by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, and the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh. It is a matter of courtesy to consider their arguments, even if one does not believe in them.
The noble Duke referred to the definition of hybridity in Erskine May, and I shall not repeat it. I say only that I find it impossible to see how anything in the Bill falls within the definition. For one thing, I do not believe that any Member of your Lordships' House has a private interest in that membership. In legal theory, I believe that attendance in your Lordships' House is a duty rather than a right. That is certainly the wording used in the Writ of Summons, which is a command and not an invitation.
It is also a recognised fact that Members of your Lordships' House who are unable to attend for a long period of time are supposed to ask for permission to be absent. Rights such as the right of access to the Chamber or access to the Voting Lobbies are ancillary to the duty to attend and participate in the work of the House. If that duty is discharged, the ancillary rights fall with it. However, whether participation in the business of the House is a right or a duty, it is plainly not a private interest, but a public one. No Member of your Lordships' House has a proprietary interest in the right or duty, whichever it may be, to sit here.
I believe the contrary was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, but in my view that is not a sustainable argument. Those who attend your Lordships' House by command of Her Majesty are here to perform a public function as members of the legislature and have no private interest in doing so.
Nor do I believe that hereditary Peers and life Peers are simply members of one single and indistinguishable class. There is a clear distinction. That distinction was applied in the Peerage Act 1963 when existing Peers by succession were entitled to disclaim their peerages, but life Peers and hereditary Peers of first creation were not. No one suggested then that for that reason the Bill was hybrid.
The officers of the House have a duty to report to your Lordships' House if, in their view, a Bill is hybrid. That is a duty they must perform when a Bill is
1112
introduced. In this case they have not so reported. That clearly indicates that they believe the Bill is not a hybrid measure. The procedure adopted today is undoubtedly technically in order, but if this issue is to be raised, I must respectfully agree with what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. If this point was to have been raised, it could and should have been raised at a very much earlier stage. The fact that it has been raised less than a week before the date fixed for Third Reading suggests that at least one of the motives is to delay and obstruct the further progress of this measure. It is completely wrong at this late stage to try to override the views of the officers of the House and to refer this matter to the Examiners.
4 p.m.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I agree with every word said by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. In my respectful opinion, the Bill is not hybrid. Dare I say that I think it is as plain as a pikestaff that it is not hybrid? I say that because a Peer does not sit in this House in order to enjoy personal rights granted to him. He sits here in order to perform duties imposed on him. The rights which he enjoys as a Member of the House are exclusively to enable him to perform those duties. I say that because Standing Order 20 states:
"Lords are to attend sittings of the House or, if they cannot do so, obtain leave of absence".
That is the fundamental position of a Lord of Parliament. He is here to perform a public duty. I find nothing in Erskine May which says that a Bill is hybrid because it relieves some members of a class from a public duty. The effect of the Bill is that certain Peers are to be relieved of a public duty which is imposed on them. It is a total misconception to speak of a Peer as exercising a right when he sits, speaks and votes. He is not doing so; he is performing a public duty. I therefore respectfully ask your Lordships to take the view that the Bill is not hybrid.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, as someone who may or may not be here in a month's time and someone who is not privy to the closet thoughts of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, I should just like to say that I so completely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said. I am here by accident of birth, because my forebears got drunk with either Walpole or Pitt—probably both. I am here because I am summoned to do my duty. If and when Parliament says that I should not be here, then I go. I am not a corner shop in Scunthorpe. I am supposed to be doing my duty to the nation. Whether that duty is good or bad, I leave to your Lordships. But it would be absolutely wrong for us to pretend that we were corner shops in Scunthorpe.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I am troubled by this debate. Some noble Lords may remember that I and several others proposed amendments to the Weatherill amendment when it was debated in July. We were juggling the figures, I suppose one might say, which were implicit in the Weatherill amendment. We were informed by the Clerk of the House—it was

1113
announced in the Chamber—that our amendments were hybrid. I found it difficult to understand how our amendments could be hybrid whereas the Weatherill amendment was not hybrid. So I incline towards the view that there is just possibly a hint of hybridity about this entire episode. I may well be wrong in that respect. But since my amendments were hybrid I have come to that conclusion.
I do not think that that really matters. We are at a late stage of the proceedings on the Bill. We are not actually dealing with constitutional niceties or things like that. We are actually dealing with brute politics. The brute politics are that this House is unbalanced politically—whether or not it is a matter of hereditary or life peerages—and the Bill before us is intended to sort that out in some way. I think that it has been badly handled right from the beginning. There might well have been attempts to reach some kind of agreement between the various parties involved, as was done in 1968. I suggested that at Second Reading some time ago. No one listened then and I dare say that no one will listen now. This is a matter of brute politics. My intention is to vote with the brutes. I shall support the Government.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I find intriguing the way the hybridity argument has been used on both sides. The moment certain amendments are proposed, they are deemed hybrid; the moment Clause 1 is examined, it is not hybrid. The same argument has been used on both sides. I find that awkward. I think that a future Chamber should consider how to define hybridity properly.
I should like to ask one question. If this Motion is agreed to and the Bill fails to pass in this Session, can the Government then invoke the Parliament Act?
The Earl of Liverpool: My Lords, the whole House should be grateful to my noble friend the Duke of Montrose and to the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, for bringing this matter before your Lordships today. It may be late in the day but it has not been resolved fully, although it has been discussed both inside and outside the Chamber.
I should like to query what the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said—that we are being asked today to decide whether the Bill is hybrid. With the greatest of respect to the noble Lord, we are not being asked to do that. We are simply being asked to agree that there is sufficient doubt in the area that we are not competent to say one way or the other and that the matter can be settled only by sending it to the Examiners. Unless we do that, we shall be failing in our duty as the custodians of our constitution.
We must put the matter to rest one way or the other. Future generations will not look kindly on us if we let this matter pass without settling it. If, as the Government claim, they want to be transparent in all their actions, they should not be opposed to seeking to
1114
ensure that the Bill reaches the statute book without flaws and immune from recriminations. I support the Motion of my noble friend the Duke of Montrose.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I shall not detain the House long. I should like to thank my noble friend the Duke of Montrose for introducing his Motion, which I support and to which I address my brief remarks, because it gives me the opportunity to return to the unfinished debate about hybridity which I had with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, on my Amendment No. 11 in our Report stage proceedings on 15th June (at cols. 233–235, 244 and 248 of the official Report). Because I suppose it is just conceivable that some of your Lordships may not instantly recall the details of that debate, which took place rather late at night, I shall repeat very briefly those parts of that Amendment No. 11 which are salient to the question of hybridity.
It proposed to leave all Peers with speaking and attendance rights for the duration of the interim House and to remove the voting rights of all Peers, both hereditary and appointed, except the Bishops and the Law Lords. It then set up four electoral colleges—one for each political party and one for the Cross Benches—to elect 700 voting Peers. Those 700 voting Peers were to be allotted as follows: 240 to the Cross Benches—
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? I am sorry to interrupt him. I admire him enormously, but to go back over Report stage arcana to produce a point is to try the patience of your Lordships. I love him dearly, but he is seriously trying the patience of the House.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, that must be for the House to decide. What I have to say bears on the issue before us and is relevant to the decision that the House must take.
As I was saying: 200 to Labour; 200 to the Conservatives; and 60 to the Liberal democrats. There would have been no distinction between hereditary or appointed Peers in the electoral colleges or in the allocations to the parties. The appointed Peers would have been put in the same boat (or perhaps the same tumbrel) as the hereditary Peers, and we would all have taken our chance together in the elections to become voting Peers. For the benefit of my noble friend Lord Onslow and others, I shall of course not repeat the advantages of that amendment over the Weatherill amendment.
Your Lordships should be aware, however, that prior to our Report stage debate on 15th June I received no fewer than three memoranda from the Public Bill office, under the signature of no less a personage than the Clerk Assistant, informing me that my amendment, if passed, would render the Bill prima facie hybrid, which would mean that it would have to go to the Examiners. The justification for that

1115
contention was contained in the following vital words in all three memoranda. The Clerk Assistant said that the amendment,
"by including in the Bill a specific allocation to different parties within the House, affects the private interests of some hereditary Peers differently from the private interests of other hereditary Peers".
What struck me as most odd about the wording of that memorandum was the singling out of "hereditary" Peers, because hereditary Peers were treated no differently under the amendment than appointed Peers; and although allocations were made to different parties within the House, both hereditary and appointed Peers are of course essentially free to move between parties as they wish, as indeed some do. It was therefore difficult to see how hybridity did in fact bite on that amendment. So I put a few questions to the Government on 15th June (at col. 234), which have not been answered, and should be answered today before we take a decision.
The first question is really the subject of this Motion, which was to ask why the original Clause 1 of the Bill did not make it hybrid. My noble friend the Duke of Montrose has dealt with that point. However, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, replied (at col. 244) that Clause 1 did not hybridise the Bill because it gave all hereditary Peers the same chance. But, I submit, so did my amendment, because it gave all Peers, both hereditary and appointed, the same chance, bearing in mind that membership of parties is not fixed in stone.
I then asked the Minister to explain the significance in the memoranda of singling out only hereditary Peers as causing hybridity in my amendment, and the record shows that he did not attempt to do so. I should be grateful for the Government's answer today. Why did my amendment make the Bill hybrid thanks only to its treatment of hereditary Peers, and not of appointed Peers as well?
The picture is even more confused, because I moved an amendment, Amendment No. 110E, in Committee on 17th May (cols. 43 to 59) which contained exactly the same features as were supposed to render the later amendment hybrid, and nobody said anything about it at all; no memoranda from the Clerk Assistant—
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will give way. I am sure that he is producing some valid points, but they seem to be way off the subject of the Motion. I think it would be to the agreement of your Lordships if the noble Lord concluded his remarks.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am in the hands of the House. I have nearly finished.
The amendment at Report stage contained exactly the same features as the amendment at Committee stage. But I had no memoranda from the Clerks on that, and not a squeak about hybridity from the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal when she came to dismiss the amendment (at col. 57). Yet the amendment had been in the Printed Paper office for weeks, and had
1116
even missed its turn once on the Marshalled List. So those who were concerned to find fault with the amendment in Committee had plenty of time to do so, but obviously did not think then that it might cause hybridity. This is part of the answer to those who say that it is now too late to introduce the aspect of hybridity. It should have been introduced at Committee stage, but because we did not receive the relevant memoranda and the Government did not produce the point, it was not.
I therefore ask the Minister: what happened to the theory of hybridity between the two stages of the Bill? Why was my amendment hybrid on Report, when it was not hybrid in Committee?
I mention all this to show that the issue of hybridity is not clear-cut, to put it mildly. We have heard many different arguments this afternoon. That is why the Bill should go to the Examiners, as my noble friend suggests. To me, all Peers who have taken the Oath form a single class, and there is nothing that the Government ought to be able to do to get round that simple fact.
Perhaps I may leave the noble Baroness who is to reply with one final and, I trust, rather awkward question. Does not the very word "Peer" mean "equal"—equal with one another, that is? And if so, on that ground alone, does not Clause 1 hybridise the Bill? I support my noble friend's amendment, and I look forward to the Minister's reply.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene for one moment only to pay a warm tribute from this side of the House to those hereditary Peers who follow the line of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, in this debate.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I suppose the real point behind the speech of my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch is that, had he received the replies to his questions at the appropriate time, we should not have needed to hear them again.
My noble friend the Duke of Montrose put forward his Motion with the quiet integrity and logic that those of us who have come to know him and who value his contributions in the House would have expected.
I share with my noble friend his distaste, and that of many other noble Lords, for this Bill. It is a bad Bill. It is mean-spirited. It is a licence for old-fashioned patronage. It is a backward-looking "Old Labour meets New Establishment" Bill. It was conceived in malice and has been carried through with a lack of grace from start to finish that has greatly disappointed the House. But the issue raised by this Motion is not whether we like the House of Lords Bill, nor whether we want it to become law. The Motion is on the narrower issue of whether the Bill, in respect of Clause 1, should be referred to the Examiners.
I do not believe that that would be a sensible thing to do. I have listened very carefully to my noble friend the Duke of Montrose. I agree with him that there is a clear and obvious injustice in the distinction drawn

1117
between life Peers and hereditary Peers. It goes against all the custom of this House—in which all Peers, from the noble Duke himself and the Earl Marshal of England, to those noble Lords who entered the House today are equal. They are all Peers.
But the Government, with their vicious, scornful and distasteful campaign against hereditary Peers—cliché piled on cliché, stereotype on stereotype, falsehood on half truth—have injected a poison into this House. They have destroyed that old balance by which all Peers looked upon each other as equal. That is to their shame. It will be up to them in future to justify their contention that a life Peer has some specific and special democratic legitimacy over and above an hereditary Peer.
But, carefully though I have heard my noble friend the Duke of Montrose, I have to say that my advice is that the Government can draw such a distinction. Otherwise, how in future could a government present legislation on life Peers, along the lines of the provisions of Clause 2 for hereditary Peers, as I have no doubt some government, some day, may wish to do. Noble Lords opposite may well wish to ponder on that ambition.
But even if my advice were wrong, and the advice of the noble Duke were right, what would it achieve, as my noble friends Lord Ferrers and Lord Elton have asked? The government spin doctors would go to work. The half truths and distortions would continue. We should be said to be trying artificially to hold up the Bill, although I know that that is not the intention of my noble friend. This afternoon, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, has already started on that charge. I can almost guarantee that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will use it once more when she makes her speech.
We will open ourselves further to that line of abuse and attack. We might even give the Government the excuse they crave to remove Clause 2 and introduce the full horror of a wholly appointed House of Lords. I do not think that would be wise.
The same considerations apply even more to the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh. He asks for the clause that has come to be known as the Weatherill amendment to be referred to the Examiners. What would that achieve? If the Examiners found that the clause was not hybrid, we should be where we are today. If the Examiners found that the clause was hybrid, would not the recourse for the Government be to drop the clause and impose their quango-Bill for the House of patronage?
The House voted overwhelmingly for the Weatherill clause, new Clause 2, as making a bad Bill better. Today I see no reason to revise that judgment. I am therefore opposed to the reference of the clause.
Some of your Lordships may think that a finding that the Bill was hybrid would make it impossible to use the Parliament Acts. I am advised that that is not the case. A declaration from the Examiners that the Bill was a hybrid Bill would not prevent the Government re-introducing the Bill next year under
1118
the Parliament Act. That was the case in 1976–77 when the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill was re-introduced under the Parliament Acts, even though it was a hybrid Bill. The hybrid Bill procedure and the Parliament Acts procedure are separate; they do not interrelate and no one who votes for this Motion should do so because they think it will frustrate the darkest purposes of the Government.
To return to the Motion in the name of my noble friend the Duke of Montrose, I much admire him and hope that the House will long have the benefit of his wisdom. But I regret intensely that I cannot support him today. I also cannot advise my noble friends to do so. But neither will I oppose a Motion that he has put forward with such integrity and which, unlike the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, touches on a matter on which the House has not yet resolved. The question of a reference of Clause 1 is ultimately a matter for the whole House to determine, although for my part, I and my colleagues on the Front Bench will abstain if my noble friend tests the opinion of the House.
One last word: if the intention is to prevent this Bill from becoming law, it should not be done indirectly through use of the hybrid Bill procedure, a device that will not work to that end. If that is the preferred option of noble Lords, it is better to go for an open kill, at Third Reading, on Bill do now pass, or when the House considers the reasons sent to us from another place. That is when the House must finally determine the rights and wrongs of the Bill. I believe that it is on those debates that noble Lords who oppose or support the Bill should concentrate their energies.
For those reasons, I cannot, regrettably, support my noble friend, but I very much look forward to further vigorous debate at Third Reading.
4.22 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, in the interests of good grace, which we have heard expressed considerably this afternoon, I welcome the underlying points which the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, made about the specific Motions before us. We have heard from several places around the House distinguished and authoritative legal opinions on the points put forward; legal opinions which I think it is true to say were all in favour of rejecting the Motions. The House may be interested to know—and to some extent it is relevant to this afternoon's proceedings—that the Privileges Committee has just ruled in favour of the Government on the second reference on the Scottish Peers. The House will be aware that two days ago the Privileges Committee unanimously rejected the earlier reference on Clause 1.
However, even that resounding defeat for the opponents of the Bill had some spurious legitimacy as a unique process, which this afternoon's proceedings do not. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, argued that because there was no legal method for deciding a point of peerage law before the Bill was passed by Parliament, the Committee for Privileges

1119
should be invoked. I did not and do not agree with that argument, but at least he was invoking extraordinary procedure machinery to test it.
In the case of the Motions before us today, there is a routine machinery for testing hybridity in a Bill. That machinery has already been invoked, as several noble Lords said this afternoon, and the Bill has been judged not to be hybrid. For those reasons, although I hope to be able to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch—and one must with courtesy respond to some of the points made by the two movers of the two Motions—I do not think it is necessary to reply in great detail to some of the points raised.
Let me just set out for the House how the system routinely operates and how it has operated on the Bill. There is a machinery in place for considering whether a Bill is prima facie hybrid. It works, whether or not a noble Lord seeks to refer a Bill to the Examiners. A Bill is considered by experts in such subjects as a matter of normal course of events in the process of its passage through the House and at each stage of that passage in relation to each amendment. The experts considered the Bill when it was first brought from the Commons, so they will have looked at the effects of Clause 1 then. They will have considered each amendment as it was tabled, including Clause 2(2).
I remind noble Lords how this works in relation to some points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, on his amendments. I take issue with his concern that he was not answered appropriately at the earlier stages, but without wishing to delay the House, I shall outline some of the points because they were relevant.
At Report stage, as the noble Lord told the House this afternoon, he was informed that he had been told that his amendment would be likely to be hybrid on a prima facie basis. He then sought guidance from the Government as to why his amendment might make the Bill hybrid while the Bill itself was not, as he explained. My noble and learned friend the Attorney-General explained it thus. The Hansard reference is the same as the one the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, gave us. Perhaps I may quote briefly from my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General:
"Clause 2 gives all hereditary Peers the same chance. It does not specify any division. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, gives Tory Peers a different chance of continuing membership from Labour Peers. The Earl Marshal and the Great Chamberlain are in a class of their own. It is, I readily concede, quite a small class, but it is in fact a class which is treated equally within itself.
The same is true of Clause 1 in relation to all hereditary Peers".—[ official Report, 15/6/99; col. 244.]
As several noble Lords have emphasised this afternoon, the key point about determining whether a Bill is hybrid is whether it affects the private interests of some person differently from the private interests of some other person in the same class. The last four words are absolutely crucial. Setting aside the issue of whether the Bill deals with private interests at all—a point rightly referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Elton and Lord Goodhart, and others—the Bill is not hybrid because it does not discriminate between
1120
members of individual classes. A class does not need to include everyone who could be included in another class of which it would be a subset. So, for example, Clause 1—the subject of the noble Duke's Motion—applies to all hereditary Peers. They, as we all know only too well, are a class on their own. I do not believe anyone in the House disputes that; indeed the whole thrust of our debate so far has been based on how they have special characteristics and are unique a group of citizens. A Bill which applies to all of them cannot, on that account, be hybrid.
The fact that a different class of Peer could be created which would include life Peers is frankly immaterial. For example, the 1963 Act allowed only for hereditary Peers to disclaim their titles. But no one suggested it was hybrid on that account.
The noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, seeks a reference in respect of Clause 2(2). That is the clause which specifies that 90 hereditary Peers may be excepted, the so-called Weatherill amendment. The first part of that clause is not hybrid because neither it nor Clause 2(1) specifies who the 90 are. All hereditary Peers are to be covered by it. The reference to the Earl Marshal and the Great Chamberlain is, of course, to two hereditary office holders. As my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General explained to the House, they are a class in their own right.
My noble and learned friend acknowledged that it was a small class but it is nevertheless a legitimate one, and for that purpose one is enough. The Public Bill office automatically considered the amendment when the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, tabled it, in the same way as it considered the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch (to which I have already referred), and several others, most notably those in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, the noble Baroness is gracious to give way, but she still has not answered the question why, at Report stage, Amendment No. 11 was prima facie hybrid when at the previous Committee stage exactly the same amendment, Amendment No. 110E, was not considered to be hybrid.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I do not seek in any way to be unhelpful, but I believe that the matters raised by my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General, which I rehearsed, cover the point. If the noble Lord is still unhappy about it, perhaps it is better to deal with it in a forum other than this debate. But I assure him that the points then made in response by my noble and learned friend were adequate.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, and other noble Lords that I have decided it is appropriate in this instance to quote from the advice given by the House authorities. The advice is not

1121
related specifically to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. The advice is as follows:
"In my view, it is not prima facie hybrid. The new clause [Clause 2] is drafted to empower the House to except up to 92 hereditary Peers from the provisions of Section 1 … The exceptions will be provided for in Standing Orders of the House and do not arise directly from the amendment. Apart from subsection (2), the amendment does not specify those who will be excepted and therefore there is no hereditary Peer who would have a locus to petition.
Subsection (2) of the new clause, however, names the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain. This does not hybridise the Bill because the two named Peers constitute a genuine class".
Although this is slightly repetitious, I restate the following to confirm that this is the official advice:
"They are hereditary Peers who by virtue of their peerage hold offices of State which have specific duties and responsibilities within the House of Lords".
I have gone into some detail—I suspect rather more than the patience of the House would prefer—in order to put on record precisely the points that my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General made in reply to debate. Without impugning the motives of some noble Lords who have taken part in the debate this afternoon, I suspect that we are spending time on matters that have already been discussed at great length and we would better spend our time on the important legislation which is set down for debate for the remainder of today. The questions raised by the noble Lords have already been carefully considered both in debate and by the appropriate House authorities.
Although the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, seeks to patronise me on the question of manners and grace, I am bound to tell the House that on this Bill I represent and lead for the Government. The Government feel very strongly, as do my Back-Benchers, that we have wasted a great deal of time.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Baroness will recall that she is also Leader of the whole House—Conservatives, Labour, Liberals and Cross-Benches.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I do. However, I am also a government Minister, and in this instance my government ministerial responsibilities are paramount. I hope that the noble Earl will take my remarks as a reflection of the degree of feeling on this side of the House about the way in which some of these matters have been conducted. In the United States an American commentator some time ago coined the phrase "clinging to the furniture". In that instance he was describing the attempts by President Nixon to hold on to office in the White House in the face of overwhelming political and legal opinion. That is not a phrase that is much used in this country. But there are some noble Lords on this side of the House whose patience is becoming stretched on some of these Motions. As the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said,
1122
this situation must be resolved politically and by the whole House. I urge the House to reject these two Motions.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, first I thank the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition for his kind words. However, I take issue with the Leader of the House. The question of hybridity has arisen in this House on a number of occasions, but it has never been fully discussed until today. I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and expressed their views.
When I first became involved in this Bill—the accusation has been thrown at me, as I knew it would, that this is rather a late stage at which to bring the matter up—I did not seek to raise the issue of hybridity. However, I find myself in the same position as the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon. When I tabled an amendment I received a letter from the Clerk of Public Bills which said that if my amendment were accepted it would make the Bill hybrid. According to my first understanding of the Bill, I believed that my amendment would make it less hybrid. I then began to gain an understanding as to what parliamentarians regarded as hybridity. To some extent, that is my excuse for bringing up this matter rather late in the day.
Reference was made to the time remaining. Noble Lords will be aware that there are three weeks left of the present Session. One of the difficulties in moving this Motion is that, according to the Clerks, there is a lack of precedence as to how a referral for hybridity should be considered. My understanding is that it should be fairly easy to wrap it up in a couple of weeks, if not less.
Another question was raised about our interest in private rights. Any private rights that I may have here are not matters that feature largely in my life. However, I refer back to the letter from the Examiners which speaks of the danger of hybridity. From that, I take it that the Examiners have ruled that there are private rights. It is not a question of whether I or anybody else wants those private rights, but a whole class of people is being deprived of them.
I accept that this is very much a political Bill and that it has been the subject of much debate in many political circles. It is, however, also a constitutional Bill which directly affects Parliament, and it is as parliamentarians taking part in the constitution of this country that we consider this measure today. It is entirely right that the procedures of the House should be adhered to and that potential legislation, particularly that affecting the constitution, should be rigorously examined to ensure that any flaws are removed and that that which passes on to the statute book is well considered and constructed legislation. I intend to press my Motion and seek the opinion of the House.
4.37 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 85; Not-Contents, 214.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ailsa, M.

Lauderdale, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Leigh, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Liverpool, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Long, V.

Biddulph, L.

Merrivale, L

Blyth, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Boardman, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Braybrooke, L.

Montrose, D.

Cadman, L.

Morris, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Moyne, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L. [Teller]

Munster, E.

Clinton, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Naseby, L.

Coleraine, L.

Nathan, L.

Coleridge, L.

Nelson, E.

Cox, B.

Newall, L.

Cross, V.

Nickson, L.

Davidson, V.

Norrie, L.

Denman, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Donoughmore, E.

Patten, L.

Dudley, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Dundee, E. [Teller]

Rees, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Rennell, L.

Elles, B.

Renwick, L.

Erroll, E.

Rodney, L.

Exmouth, V.

Rowallan, L.

Saint Albans, D.

Fisher, L.

St. Germans, E.

Forester, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gainford, L.

Sharples, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Strange, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Sudeley, L.

Gray, L.

Suffield, L.

Haddington, E

Teynham, L.

Hambro, L.

Torphichen, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Torrington, V.

Harrowby, E.

Wedgwood, L.

Hemphill, L.

Weir, V.

Holderness, L.

Westbury, L.

Ironside, L.

Wise, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Bragg, L.

Acton, L.

Brentford, V.

Addington, L.

Brett, L.

Ahmed, L.

Bridges, L.

Alderdice, L.

Brightman, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Alli, L.

Brookman, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Amos, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Annan, L.

Burlison, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Burns, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Carlisle, E.

Avebury, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Bach, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Barnett, L.

Chandos, V.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Bath and Wells, Bp.

Chorley, L.

Berkeley, L.

Christopher, L.

Blackstone, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Borrie, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

1124

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Longford, E.

Crawley, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Croham, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

[Teller]

David, B.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Desai, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

Dholakia, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Dixon, L.

McNair, L.

Donoughue, L.

McNally, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Maddock, B.

Drogheda, E.

Mallalieu, B.

Dubs, L.

Marsh, L.

Ebury, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Elder, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Methuen, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Ezra, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Mishcon, L.

Falkland, V.

Molloy, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Monkswell, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Filkin, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Gale, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Geraint, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Gilbert, L.

Newby, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Nicol, B.

Glanusk, L.

Ogmore, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Onslow, E.

Goodhart, L.

Orme, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Patel, L.

Goudie, B.

Peston, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Grantchester, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gregson, L.

Porter of Luddenham, L.

Grenfell, L.

Puttnam, L.

Hacking, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hamwee, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Hanworth, V.

Razzall, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Rea, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Redesdale, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Hayman, B.

Rennard, L

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Richard, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Hooson, L.

Russell, E.

Howie of Troon, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Hoyle, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Serota, B.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Hylton, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Shepherd, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord

Sheppard of Liverpool, L.

Chancellor)

Shore of Stepney, L.

Islwyn, L.

Simon, V.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Slim, V.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord

Smith of Clifton, L.

Privy Seal)

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Stallard, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Judd, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Kennet, L,

Taverne, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Kintore, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Laming, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Levy, L.

Thornton, B.

Lipsey, L.

Thurso, V.

Lockwood, B.

Tordoff, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

1125

Uddin, B.

Whitty, L.

Varley, L.

Wigoder, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Wilkins, B.

Walpole, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Warner, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Wilson of Tillyorn, L.

Weatherill, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, I thank all those who spoke in response to my particular presentation as regards the hybrid measures. I would like to make one or two brief comments. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, simply does not comprehend sufficiently that a constitution is private. A number of noble Lords quite rightly said—the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, has raised this already—that the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, was quite correct in agreeing with me when I presented various questions about certain of the parts of the Bill which, as I have argued, make it hybrid. None the less, having had the opinion of the House on the Motion moved by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, it would be unwise of me to press further. I shall not move my Motion to refer the Bill to the Examiners in respect of Clause 2(2).

Immigration and Asylum Bill
4.51 p.m.
Further considered on Report.
Schedule 5 [The Immigration Services Commissioner]:
Lord Dholakia Lord Dholakia moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 123, line 1, leave out ("(c),").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 106 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 107 and 108. A number of other amendments have also been proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon.
I shall be very brief. The purpose is not in any way to dispute what the role of the immigration services commissioner should be. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the immigration services commissioner would have to refer an alleged breach by a member of the designated professional body of that body's rules to the relevant professional body.
Amendment No. 108 is designed and intended to ensure that all complaints in respect of the members of one body are conducted by the same body to avoid members being subject to the unnecessary conduct of two investigations by both their professional body and the immigration services commissioner. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, rightly said, Amendments
1126
Nos. 108A to 108C, which stand in my name, fall for discussion at this point. Amendment No. 108A allows the designated professional body an opportunity to address a problem which has arisen and to make representations to the commissioner before the commissioner becomes involved in the complaints procedure. Clearly, those who suggested it to us, in particular the Law Society of Scotland, believe that in many cases they would be able to resolve the problem without the necessity to bring up the heavy guns on the matter. That seems to me to be a sensible suggestion.
Amendment No. 108B has a slightly different character. It provides that the immigration services commissioner and the deputy commissioner should be disqualified from membership of the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales just as they are disqualified from membership of the House of Commons and the Assembly for Northern Ireland. I am advised by some legal opinion that that is necessary in order to fill a lacuna in the Bill. I may be told that that is already provided for. I am sure that it is everyone's wish that the disqualification should be put in place. If that is so, no doubt the Minister will tell us.
Amendment No. 108C refers to fees. At the moment solicitors and others pay considerable fees which provide for the protection of the public. It is not apparent why additional fees should be paid. The Law Society of Scotland made representations on this point. It pointed out that the disciplinary system is maintained from the fees already paid and that will obviously continue. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 108C.
The Minister of State, Cabinet office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, I am grateful for the very clear way in which these amendments have been dealt with. However, I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, that the early part of his remarks was lost in the noise of the stampede of noble Lords leaving the Chamber. Therefore, I cannot guarantee that I shall answer every point. The noble Lord should feel free to interrupt if I have missed a point.
Perhaps I may also deal with Amendment No. 109, which is a government amendment. I can do that very shortly. That amendment ensures that aggrieved clients or the immigration services commissioner have the appropriate means to enforce in Scotland a direction given by the immigration services tribunal for the repayment of fees to clients or for the payment of a penalty to the commissioner. At the appropriate moment I shall urge noble Lords to accept that amendment.
Amendment No. 106 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, would remove an alleged breach by a member of a designated professional body of one or more of the rules of the relevant body from the definition of a relevant complaint. It is linked with Amendment No. 107 which specifically excludes the designated professional bodies from the complaints scheme.

1127
The Government are committed to controlling the behaviour of unscrupulous immigration advisers. It has been decided that the best method of achieving that is by means of a statutory regulatory scheme. Unfortunately, some of the worst examples of unscrupulous behaviour have been carried out by members of the legal professions. In these circumstances it is entirely wrong that the complaint made against a member of one of the designated professional bodies would not be regarded, were this amendment to succeed, as a complaint to be investigated by the commissioner. Therefore, these amendments run contrary to the spirit of the regulatory scheme and I urge your Lordships to reject them.
Amendment No. 108 spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, would provide 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 employ, to provide immigration advice or services or a breach of one or more of the rules of the relevant regulatory body.
However, the commissioner already has an analogous but more appropriate power under paragraph 9(1)(c) of this schedule under which he may determine a complaint against a member of a designated professional body and refer it and his decision on it to the relevant regulatory body. It is important that the commissioner should form a preliminary view on the complaint before referring it. As an independent regulator he can add value to the process. In the light of what has been said, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, will not move his amendment.
The Bill contains a provision which allows 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 taking any disciplinary action in connection with a complaint.
Amendment No. 108A would limit the commissioner to requiring a body to provide an explanation where a complaint is made to him about the time taken by that body to deal with the complaint and to give a timetable in which the complaint will be dealt with. If the body then fails to adhere to the suggested timetable, the amendment would allow the commissioner to set a timetable.
We believe that it is only right that all professional bodies should deal with complaints in a reasonable time. Sadly, the record in terms of timeliness of some of the legal professions in dealing with complaints has not been a happy one. Some legal professions have been given additional powers to investigate complaints in the Access to Justice Act. Against that background we believe that it is perfectly reasonable to provide the commissioner with the power to set a timescale for the conduct of an inquiry into complaints against members of the legal profession.
1128
The purpose of the regulatory scheme is to ensure that people receive quality immigration advice and are not overcharged for that, and that complaints are effectively investigated within a reasonable timescale. The effect of this amendment would be that as regards some complaints the timescale for their effective resolution would be lengthened. That runs contrary to the intention of the scheme. I invite the noble Lord not to move his amendment when the time comes.
Amendment No. 108B seeks to disqualify the commissioner and deputy commissioner from appointment to the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales. There is already provision in relation to disqualification of the commissioner and deputy commissioner from the House of Commons and the Northern Ireland Assembly. However, disqualification from the Assemblies for Scotland and Wales is, we believe, a matter for those Assemblies. I invite the noble Lord not to move that amendment.
Amendment No. 108C would remove the provisions for specifying by order a fee for the purpose of meeting the costs incurred by the commissioner in respect of each designated professional body to be payable by the designated professional bodies and for the recovery of any unpaid fee. We have written to the professional bodies informing 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. 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.
One professional body will 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 carried out by the commissioner on behalf of that body. Again, I invite the noble Lord not to move that amendment.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, I wanted to remind my noble and learned friend that it is a Parliament in Scotland, not an Assembly.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I apologise and stand rightly corrected in that respect.
5 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. Like him, we are all concerned about the role of unscrupulous advisers and qualified people who exploit those who are in desperate need of help. The best course of action is to see how the functions of the immigration services commissioner are carried out. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 107 to 108B not moved.]
Clause 81 [Designated professional bodies]:
[Amendment No. 108C not moved.]
Clause 84 [Disciplinary charge upheld by the Tribunal]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 56, line 26, leave out ("order of the Court of Session") and insert ("extract registered decree arbitral bearing a warrant for execution issued by the sheriff court of any sheriffdom in Scotland").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 89 [Interpretation of Part VI]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 110:
Page 59, line 17, at end insert—
(""the Department" means the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland;").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, government Amendment No. 110 is a paving amendment to provide that in so far as Northern Ireland is concerned, the Northern Ireland Department of Health and Social Security may make regulations in connection with Part VI of the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 111, 112 and 113 provide for the definition of the term "dependant" in Clause 89 to apply in relation to a "supported person" rather than simply in relation to the asylum seeker. This puts it beyond doubt that the Secretary of State can support an asylum seeker's dependants independently of the asylum seeker himself; for example, if he were detained for some reason. As currently drafted, Clause 89 defines a supported person as being an asylum seeker or his dependant to whom support is given under Clause 90.
Amendment No. 114 simply amends this form of words so that it refers to a person for whom support is provided, thereby harmonising it with existing references elsewhere in Part VI.
Amendment No. 116 is a technical amendment which makes it clear that for the purposes of Part VI an asylum seeker's appeal against refusal of asylum is regarded as being disposed of when it is no longer pending for the purposes of the Immigration Acts or the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997. This would include appeals to the Court of Appeal and to the House of Lords.
This is important in terms of the termination of support because an asylum seeker being supported under Part VI whose appeal against refusal of asylum has been unsuccessful ceases to be entitled to support at the end of a prescribed period following notification of the outcome of that appeal.
There has to be a defined end to the asylum process at which point support provided under Part VI will be terminated. In essence, this is at the end of a prescribed period after the asylum seeker is notified of the decision on his asylum claim or, if he appeals, when he is notified of the decision on the final appeal. But given our concern for the welfare of children, Clause 89(5) disapplies that provision to families with children under the age of 18. They will receive support for as long as they remain in the United Kingdom.
Amendment No. 117 clarifies that once the youngest child reaches his 18th birthday, the family will cease to continue to be entitled to support under subsection (5). It will be a wholly adult household and should be treated in the same way as other adult asylum seekers. This was always out intention and the amendment ensures that that is the case.
The purpose of Amendment No. 181 is slightly to broaden the powers of the Secretary of State with regard to the recovery of overpayments as provided under the clause. At present, the clause extends to payments made under the main support scheme. The amendment extends this so that erroneous overpayments made under the powers in Clause 94 would also be covered. Any use of these powers would be in respect of public monies disbursed in error. The power of recovery simply places the public purse back into the position in which it would have been had the payment not been made. The existing provisions make allowance for secondary legislation to prescribe exactly how the recovery is to be achieved other than through the courts. Clearly, efforts would be made to ensure that the recovery did not lead to untoward difficulties for innocent recipients of the unintended bounty. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendments Nos. 111 to 114:
Page 59, line 18, after ("asylum-seeker") insert ("or a supported person").
Page 59, line 20, leave out ("the asylum-seeker's") and insert ("his").
Page 59, line 21, leave out ("the asylum-seeker") and insert ("his").
Page 59, line 37, leave out ("to whom support is given") and insert ("for whom support is provided").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark The Lord Bishop of Southwark moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 60, line 3, at end insert ("and shall in any event be extended—

(i) in the event that either party indicates an intention 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 and his dependants (if any) following rejection of an asylum claim").

The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, Amendment No. 115 seeks to prevent support for an asylum seeker, with or without a family, being prematurely terminated. Its sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii)

1131
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 in question.
Obviously, hunger and homelessness should not be used to block access to justice to asylum seekers who may have good grounds to apply for judicial review. The rule of law is nullified if access to justice is denied to the most vulnerable, especially if they risk being starved out of their legal rights by the other party in the legal proceedings in question; in this case, the Government. As things stand, there is no power to extend support even when it is the Secretary of State who brings the challenge. That appears self-evidently to be wrong.
It will be no less wrong, and equally a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights, to impose destitution in an attempt to prevent asylum seekers taking up their legal rights to seek to challenge unfavourable determinations. This 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 would be the same, whatever the statistics.
Sub-paragraph (iii) concerns the Secretary of State's power to reconsider cases. Surely, it would be wrong to fetter the duty and discretion of the Secretary of State to consider the adjudicator's recommendations or further recommendations and representations following a failed appeal by depriving the Secretary of State 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 feeding himself or herself.
Sub-paragraph (iv) concerns the various other circumstances in which unsuccessful asylum applicants may not be immediately removable from the United Kingdom. The asylum seeker may be in an advanced stage of pregnancy or otherwise unfit to travel; there may be problems and delays in travel documentation; or the circumstance in the country of origin may be such that removal to that destination is for the time being impossible or dangerous. For example, for the past year or more, UNHCR has advised that failed asylum seekers cannot safely be returned to Angola. That has resulted in some failed Angolan asylum seekers being on temporary admission for months following the dismissal of their appeals, with support where necessary being provided by their local authorities under the National Assistance Act and the Children Act.
What might happen to such people in the future if this part of the Bill is passed unamended? They could be removed from support scheme accommodation in whatever location they might have been dispersed, with no money or other means to feed or house themselves. As persons subject to immigration control,
1132
they would have no access to local authority assistance. What will they do? Will they beg, steal, and sleep in the streets?
In addition to all the other socially undesirable features of that scenario, how is it envisaged that the Immigration Service will find them when, and if, removal becomes feasible? It would be inhuman, not to mention prohibitively expensive, to detain indefinitely all those who, through no fault of their own, cannot yet be removed. The alternative, unless this amendment is passed, is the creation of a roaming vagabond class of unknown size and with no incentive whatever to maintain contact with the authorities.
The response of Mr O'Brien, the Minister in another place—that provision may be made for support through the voluntary sector—is not an adequate response. We in the voluntary sector seek to meet human need wherever necessary. Need of ten occurs through unforeseen circumstances or unforeseen consequences of otherwise enlightened legislation. We are more than happy to help to meet temporary needs in such circumstances. However, we are not happy to agree to provide a safety net in situations which are deliberately entered into. Without this amendment, it seems to me quite obvious that some people will be at risk of being made destitute. It is simply our duty to prevent that. I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, the principle of Amendment No. 115 is straightforward and simple. It is that the processes which entitle people in this country to the full protection of the laws should not be short-circuited by their inability to survive while that full protection is extended to them. As the right reverend Prelate very eloquently said, hunger and homelessness should not be reasons why people are not entitled to justice.
Most people who seek asylum status in this country are far from well off. Some, when they reach us, are already virtually destitute. That is exactly the reason why, quite properly, the Government have sought to provide some sort of support for them. However critical we may be of the form that support takes, we accept that the Government recognise that those people deserve to be supported.
The strange thing is that that form of support comes to an end before the appeals process is completed. Indeed, one of the most serious forms of appeal, judicial review, is not included within the extension of the support arrangements. People seeking and getting leave for judicial review have already, by definition, a fairly powerful case. As the right reverend Prelate pointed out, in 81 per cent of cases where people seek judicial review, they are eventually satisfactorily shown to have a case which can not only be n lade out, but is accepted by the court.
What we are now effectively saying is that for the lack of the ability to support people, that final process of law may not be open to them. That is a profoundly

1133
objectionable principle. What is open to us should be open to them. It also conflicts, if I may say so, with what I might call the spirit of Tampere. It was only earlier this week that we were informed that under the agreements reached at the site of that European Union Council meeting, third country nationals were to be treated on a par with European citizens. Surely deprivation of the final right to that final stage of the judicial process hardly amounts to equal treatment.
I do not want to detain the House, but I believe that a fundamental principle is at stake here: the fundamental principle of justice to all, regardless of means, regardless of income and regardless of wealth. On the ground of that principle, I strongly commend to the House the amendment in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I should like briefly to support the last two speakers. There seems to me to be little point in a having a litany of rights of appeal and rights to have the courts supervising the jurisdiction being provided if one cannot have the wherewithal to live while that process goes on. A right which cannot be exercised is no right at all. I support, for the reasons given, the need for a power to support, even where the appeal may look hopeless. Many appeals look hopeless but in the end turn out to be successful.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, I too rise to support this amendment, but the case for it will not be strengthened by my rehearsing again the arguments already placed before this House.
I spent a day at an adjudication tribunal a fortnight ago, and I took the opportunity to speak with many of those involved in such cases at the front line. They are some of our finest lawyers and I was enormously impressed by the arguments they put forward on this subject. I wanted to add my voice to those saying that this seems an eminently sensible, humane and right amendment. I hope that it will have some support from Government.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I too should like to support the amendment in the name of the right reverend Prelate. He has already referred to the work of charities and to the burden that this clause will create. We shall return to that point in a later amendment. I should like to ask the Government about the cost of including this amendment. I suspect that it may not be very great. I wonder also if, in their efforts to look firm—I understand the signals which they have to send to the public all through the process of this Bill—the Government are sacrificing their ability to be fair.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the subject of Amendment No. 115, which is an important issue, has received much consideration both in Committee in this House and in another place. The Government believe it important that there must be a defined point at which the support provided under Part VI of the Bill
1134
will come to an end. Asylum seekers whose application or appeal has been considered and found to be without merit cannot expect to receive continued support once their claim has been resolved. To do otherwise would merely encourage people to take unfounded cases to judicial review in order only to prolong their stay here and to receive support while doing so.
I must emphasise that it has already been stated on a number of occasions in this context that in the interest of the welfare of children, we are committed to support asylum seekers with children under the age of 18 for as long as they remain in the United Kingdom. By the time an asylum seeker's case reaches the stage of judicial review, it will have been thoroughly considered by the Home office, by an adjudicator, possibly by the Immigration Appeals Tribunal, and will have been found to be without merit by all of these. If the tribunal's decision results in an appeal being heard either in the Court of Appeal or in the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords, support will continue for that period.
We believe that it is only right that those who want to take their case further by pursuing a judicial review should look to the voluntary sector or to their own communities for support. Recognising the role of the voluntary sector in supporting such cases, we propose to make substantial sums available to them for support of what one might term "hard cases", at their discretion.
The situations which the amendment seeks to cover are, with respect, exceedingly wide, and offer the less scrupulous economic migrant—for, at this stage of the asylum process, it is realistic to say that that is what they are of ten found to be—huge scope for creating delays. We know, for example, that the great majority of applications for judicial review never even result in the granting of leave. The scope of what the amendment terms "further representations" is huge, and the extent to which creative obstruction can create difficulties for normal removal is considerable. In order to continue the support, all that will be required is an application for leave to apply for judicial review or the making of further representations.
As part of the improvement of the whole immigration process, we are also upgrading arrangements for assisting the return of those no longer entitled to remain in this country. In certain circumstances, that may include assistance with documentation and ticketing. Rather than providing a continued expectation of statutory support, that is the correct approach towards people who claim difficulty in leaving the country.
Where there are genuine problems, the voluntary sector would be able to deploy a hard cases grant to assist such people. The support arrangements that we propose in this part of the Bill are eminently fair and reasonable for anyone with a genuine claim for asylum. I cannot accept the proposition contained in this amendment.
I shall deal with two points. First, I was asked what would be the costs involved. It will be impossible to tell the costs without knowing the number of people

1135
involved in the making either of an application for judicial review or the making of "further representations", to quote the wording of the amendment. In 1998, there were 1,350 judicial review applications from asylum seekers. However, I cannot tell your Lordships how many asylum seekers in total are covered by that number because the number of dependants would also have to be taken into account. Of those 1,350, only 320 were granted leave to make the application for leave for judicial review. Therefore, of the 1,350, 1,030 were rejected as having no arguable case. Despite that, the effect of the amendment would be that those cases would be entitled to the continuation of support.
A second point was raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark who asked what could be done by people with no resources. As is clear from the argument which I have advanced, we say that an end must be brought to the support when, in effect, the process comes to an end. It is worth pointing out that there has always been some person who is subject to existing immigration control while having no access to benefits. So far, such people have not been evident in the population of those sleeping rough on the streets. That was a point made by the right reverend Prelate.
In the light of all those circumstances, I respectfully ask the House not to accept the amendment.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, the point was made about applications for judicial review. What will happen if the application has been granted? That would cut down very considerably the problem of numbers mentioned by the noble and learned Lord. It means that a judge has taken the view that there is a good arguable case for establishing that someone has acted with out jurisdiction or has acted unfairly in the judicial review sense. What harm would there be in enabling support to run from the moment that leave to move has been granted?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, that point was raised in Committee. It has been very carefully considered by the Government. We do not believe that the appropriate way to deal with the comparatively small number of such cases in 1998 is by reviving the right to support, which is the implication of the noble and learned Lord's suggestion; we believe that those cases can be dealt with by the substantial sums that will be given to the voluntary sector to help with the hard cases.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord mentioned "substantial sums". Will he give the House a rough idea of what is meant by that and whether the voluntary sector has been consulted on whether it wants that burden?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not have the precise figure at my fingertips. I shall write to the noble Lord in relation to that. The question of whether the voluntary sector has been consulted was also raised
1136
in Committee. The answer is yes, it has been consulted. I acknowledge that the voluntary sector said in many cases that it preferred the matter not to be dealt with in this way. Of course, for obvious reasons, any sensible voluntary sector organisation would say from its point of view that it is far better that the state bears that burden. However, we do not believe that that is the right approach as a matter of policy.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I respect the arrangements which the Government seek to make for what the Minister has called "hard cases". However, with respect, such hard cases sometimes end on the streets or on our doorsteps and I prefer not to see more of them.
I feel that this matter involves an important legal and moral principle. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
5.25 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 115) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 74; Not-Contents, 122.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Addington, L.

McNair, L.

Alderdice, L.

McNally, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Maddock, B.

Avebury, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Bath and Wells, Bp.

Merrivale, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Methuen, L.

Brentford, V.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Calverley, L.

Newall, L.

Carlisle, E.

Newby, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Clancarty, E.

Ogmore, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Palmer, L.

Davidson, V.

Patel, L.

Dholakia, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Elton, L.

Razzall, L.

Ezra, L.

Redesdale, L.

Falkland, V.

Rennard, L

Gage, V.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Geraint, L.

Russell, E. [Teller]

Glanusk, L.

Sandwich, E.

Goodhart, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Grey, E.

Sheppard of Liverpool, L.

Hamwee, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Southwark, Bp. [Teller]

Hemphill, L.

Suffield, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hylton, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L

Jakobovits, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Thurso, V.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Tordoff, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Turner of Camden, B.

Kintore, E.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Wigoder, L.

Lichfield, Bp.

Williams of Crosby, B.

1137

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Ahmed, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Privy Seal)

Alli, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Amos, B.

Kennet, L.

Ampthill, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Bach, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Barnett, L.

Leathers, V.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Levy, L.

Berkeley, L.

Lipsey, L.

Blackstone, B.

Lockwood, B.

Borrie, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Bragg, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Brett, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

[Teller]

Brookman, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Burlison, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Mallalieu, B.

Chandos, V.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Christopher, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Molloy, L.

Crawley, B.

Monkswell, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

David, B.

Nicol, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Northbourne, L.

Desai, L.

Orme, L.

Dixon, L.

Peston, L.

Donoughue, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Puttnam, L.

Dubs, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Rea, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Richard, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Filkin, L.

Serota, B.

Gale, B.

Shepherd, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Simon, V.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Goudie, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Grantchester, L.

Thornton, B.

Hacking, L.

Uddin, B.

Hanworth, V.

Varley, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Hayman, B.

Walpole, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Warner, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Whitty, L.

Hoyle, L.

Wilkins, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord

Winston, L.

Chancellor)

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Islwyn, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 116:
Page 60, line 5, leave out ("Part IV") and insert ("the Immigration Acts or the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 117:
Page 60, line 8, after ("while") insert ("—

(a) the child is under 18; and

(b)")

On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark The Lord Bishop of Southwark moved Amendment No. 118:
After Clause 89, insert the following new clause—
ELIGIBILITY FOR SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS
(". 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 or 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 the application for asylum to the determination of an adjudicator of the appeal against the initial asylum decisions is less than six months.").
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, it is no secret that those of us in the voluntary sector involved in the day-to-day care of asylum seekers do not like the system of vouchers proposed in the Bill; nor do we like the overall level of the support package. Nevertheless, we have been slightly comforted by the Government's constant assurance that the care package is simply for a matter of months while an asylum application is swiftly decided, after which a successful applicant would fall within the normal benefit system. So there will be an inadequate and harsh system of care imposed for a matter of months.
The problem is that there are grave doubts that cases will be decided in a matter of months. The Home office computer at Croydon lies within my diocese and I am not at all comforted by the stories from those working there. The figures are not too bright: a little over 2,000 decisions made in July; 4,680 in June and 4,185 in May. Furthermore, the July figure included speedier Yugoslavian cases for which less casework was required.
The Government's aim of fairer, faster, firmer decision-making is thoroughly laudable. The aim of reducing the average time for processing applications to six months is a noble one. However, if that target is not reached in the short or the medium term, it is not right for asylum seekers to exist for years on an inadequate care package which was designed to see them through a few months.
Of course, we understand the politics of the matter. The Government do not want to be seen to be a soft touch for asylum seekers with weak cases, which is why vouchers, not cash, are given. I am also sure that the Government do not want to appear to be harsh and unjust to those who prove to be genuine in their search for sanctuary in this humane country of ours.
Amendment No. 118 takes the Government at their word and would provide that the support system shall not come into force until the Government have met their own targets for processing and that, in the mean time, benefits shall be restored to all asylum seekers who qualify for them. The Government have issued a consultation paper laying out new interim arrangements to be operated by local authorities from the coming into force of the Bill to the coming into force of the support arrangements to be operated by the proposed asylum support directive. It seems that those interim arrangements will, to a large extent, mirror the support arrangements under the Bill.
I may well have misunderstood these matters as they are complex and complicated. It appears that these proposals for interim arrangements constitute a breach of a commitment not to bring families into the support system until the time targets are met, as the interim arrangements would mean that they would be living under virtually the same scheme.
Amendment No. 118 would supersede all of that by restoring benefits for an interim period until the Government's targets are met. It keeps matters straightforward and just. I hope that your Lordships will support it. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, whom I am happy to see in her place, suggested during our debates on single parent benefits at the beginning of this Parliament that some of the gravest hardships facing people on benefit fell on those who had been a long time on benefit. She has since repeated that suggestion a little more definitely. It is the sort of thing about which she is of ten right. I take that suggestion extremely seriously. It is that principle which underlies the thinking behind this amendment.
The thinking behind Amendment No. 118 is that a system which puts people below benefit levels is only excusable, if at all, on the assumption which the Home Office has consistently made; that is, that it is to apply only for a short time. It is certainly a thoroughly plausible view and one I am strongly inclined to share.
This is an extremely moderate amendment. It does not challenge the introduction of the Home Office system. It simply puts a "condition precedent"—as the draftsman put it—on its commencement. That condition precedent is that the Home Office should have achieved an objective which it actually set itself.
I pass over altogether the argument of whether it is proper to use the system of support to deter asylum applications to this country. In saying that, I feel I am entitled, like Clive, to,
"stand astonished at my own moderation".
I pass over altogether the debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, with which the noble Baroness is quite familiar in relation to the adequacy of benefit levels and therefore a fortiori the adequacy of support below benefit levels. I pass over all the arguments about vouchers. Whenever such things have been introduced they have rapidly produced a discounted, second-hand market in
1140
which some remarkable things have happened. I pass over altogether the problem of supply in kind. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, may remember the point I made on the initial Statement last year; that when food drops were first offered to Bosnian Muslims, they were 30 per cent pork. We see in other contexts that where provision is made in kind, the actual amount of provision is diminished because some of it is unacceptable to some of the people who receive it. I pass over also an argument of costs such that we have had to get assurances that local authorities operating this system will be exempt from the provisions of best value legislation.
We are concerned only with the reality of the Home office's justification: that this scheme will be in force for a short time for each applicant. I rely on the Home office's White Paper which is the background to this Bill, paragraph 8.18. Having justified the claim that there ought to be a separate system of support for asylum seekers, the White Paper then states:
"The corollary of this is that asylum applications must be resolved much more quickly than at present, so that those who can establish an entitlement to remain in the United Kingdom are promptly distinguished from those who cannot".
I agree with the Home Office on that. When the Home Office meets its own target, which I do not believe is imminent, this amendment would allow the scheme to go forward.
I remember reading—I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has read it also—the testimony of Sir Michael Partridge to the Public Accounts Committee on the CSA. Sir Michael said that one thing that must never happen again was to have at one and the same time a major new piece of legislation, a major administrative reorganisation and a major new computer system. I pass over whether the Home Office computer is exactly new, but it is certainly having as many teething problems as if it were. Sir Michael's reservations apply strongly to this system of support. Under the interim system, the Home Office is proposing to introduce something close to that system no more than a month from now. Introducing a system which is even now being amended fills me with misgivings. We think of the CSA and the poll tax; we do not want to be there again.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, attached to this group of amendments is my Amendment No. 183, which is designed to ensure that disabled asylum seekers have a right to special support for which they qualify because of their disability.
Clause 111, as currently drafted, means that no one who is subject to immigration control will be entitled to a range of income maintenance and extra cost benefits, including disability benefits. This amendment would ensure that severe disablement allowance—a meagre income replacement benefit available to those who are defined as 80 per cent disabled; disability living allowance which is an extra cost allowance for those with significant care or mobility needs; attendance allowance which provides

1141
for the care needs for those aged 65 and over, and the disabled person's tax credit, would be available to those subject to immigration control who meet the criteria for those benefits in terms of their disability.
Regulations have debarred asylum seekers and their families from claiming disability benefits since the changes to the benefit rules in February 1996, except for a small number who remain entitled because of transitional provisions. It is the view of disability organisations, and indeed my own view, that people with special and additional needs due to disability should have access to those special benefits in recognition of the extra costs that they face. The standard rate of support envisaged by the special support scheme for asylum seekers does not meet the needs of disabled adults and children. The simplest way for the Government to give asylum seekers that additional help is to restore to them the right to claim those benefits if they satisfy the medical tests. If the application for asylum fails, the entitlement to benefit will cease unless the asylum seeker appeals against the refusal of asylum status. Then the right to the benefit will continue until there is a final decision on the claim for asylum.
Although there do not seem to be official figures on the number of asylum seekers or refugees who are disabled, disability organisations' experience supports the view that the incidence of disability and ill health is much higher for this group than for the population in general. For some, direct experience of oppression, imprisonment, ill treatment, beatings or torture results in disability. For example, beatings around the head can cause permanent damage to the inner ear and loss of hearing. Rape and other forms of sexual abuse of ten result in permanent damage and recurring health problems. For others, disability results from untreated wounds or malnutrition experienced when fleeing persecution or war. The loss of limbs as a result of land-mines is a major cause of disablement in some parts of the world which are, or have been, experiencing warfare. Those asylum seekers with existing conditions such as diabetes, heart disease or haemophilia will have had them exacerbated by stress and the inability to obtain regular and safe medical care or treatment. It is extremely common among asylum seekers for a physically disabling condition to be accompanied by mental health problems.
As the House will know, there is an accepted body of research which substantiates the fact that disabled people face extra costs as a direct consequence of their disability. That is accepted by the Government and is reflected in the social security system through the provision of extra cost disability benefits, such as disability living allowance and attendance allowance. There is also some limited recognition—in the form of disability premiums and disabled child premium for income support within means-tested benefits—that extra financial help is necessary for those families with a disabled member.
The Lord Bishop of Lichfield: My Lords, I should like to press this point in relation to children. I work closely with the Children's Society in this matter. We are very concerned about the plight of families with young children whose circumstances are so grave that they can conceive of no other solution than to uproot themselves and flee. I am not clear what the position is as regards under 18 year-olds. Perhaps I may put it as a question. Can the Government assure us that asylum-seeking families with young children will not be provided for under these new interim arrangements but will continue to receive support under current arrangements until we know that the targets will be met for determining asylum claims?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, Amendment No. 184, which falls to be spoken to in this grouping, has been tabled in my name. I shall preface my remarks by harking back to the debate in which I took part on Monday evening. At that time, I pleaded the case strongly for special consideration to be given to women who, as well as having many other sadnesses as regards their circumstances, also allege that they have been raped. The case that I made was brought to my attention by the Black Women's Rape Action Project and Women Against Rape, which operate out of Crossroads Women's Centre in Kentish Road.
I took great heart and comfort from the manner in which it was explained to me that the burden of their complaint is that rape, which amounts to persecution, had been insufficiently taken into account as regards the circumstances of women in that class. I am very grateful indeed because I felt that there was some sensitivity in the reply of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer on Monday night and an indication that the issue is well understood.
My amendment seeks to exclude asylum seekers from a number of categories set out in Clause 111. It says:
"Subsection (1)(a) to (k) of this section shall not apply to an asylum seeker where there is evidence of persecution or torture…including rape or other sexual violence, who shall be paid income support at the urgent cases rate as prescribed".
The case has been made from different points of view, but it is all the same. The purpose of the amendment is to restore cash benefits to asylum seekers where there is evidence of persecution and/or torture, including rape or other sexual violence. Again, I refer to my noble and learned friend's words on Monday night from which I detected that this was accepted as persecution.
I believe that it is urgent to ensure that the same standard of treatment is applied to victims of rape and other torture seeking asylum as rape victims in Britain. This includes access to cash benefits, reverting to the situation that existed prior to 1996.
The voucher system administered not by the DSS but by the Home office would stigmatise women and their children. This system forces women and children to live on inadequate and inappropriate food, seriously undermining their health, which is likely to have been significantly damaged by the torture from which they have fled. It will impose hardship and

1143
inestimable stress and anxiety on mothers who will have no cash for essential items such as nappies, medicines, and so on. It is also urgent to restore access to healthcare and social services to victims at a time when they need it most, as they are traumatised by rape and other torture as well as recovering from physical injuries or illness.
I believe that the case stands on the words that I have used. I am sure that noble Lords are not short of human feelings and that they recognise the dreadful situation of women who find themselves in such circumstances. I am also well aware that the Government do not have a bottomless purse and that they have to set priorities and make judgments—indeed, harsh judgments at times. However, the case I have made on behalf of these unfortunate women merits the most sympathetic and, l hope, generous response.
Baroness Masham of Ilkon: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister a question relating to Amendments Nos. 183 and 184. I have in mind the facilities which will or will not be available for HIV and AIDS treatment. I believe that everyone in this House knows that Africa is ripe with HIV and AIDS. Many asylum seekers may be HIV positive but not know it. I should like to know what happens when such people become ill. Can the Minister tell us what the facilities for testing and for drugs will be? Can he also say what facilities will be available for the children who may also be HIV positive? Indeed, some of the women who have been raped may become HIV positive.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, when we discussed Part VI of the Bill in Committee, my noble friend Lady Mar and I moved a number of amendments which dealt with some of the questions that have been put before the House today. I am happy to support the noble Lords, Lord Graham of Edmonton and Lord Swinfen, and the right reverend Prelates the Bishops of Lichfield and of Southwark in the amendments to which they have spoken. They are good amendments which should commend themselves to the House.
Linked with these amendments are Amendments Nos. 149 and 150 which are tabled in my name. I heard what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said earlier about taking the path of moderation, but perhaps I may for a moment lure him away from that path. These amendments are designed to go right to the heart of the voucher system. I make no apologies for saying that I believe it to be a bad system and that I would not wish to see it in the Bill.
I know that we are pressed for time and for that reason I shall be brief. However, I have some questions for the Minister about the voucher system. My understanding is that it will be run by an asylum-version of Camelot; in other words, a private company. I have no objection to this in principle if we can be told what the pr of it margins and the costs will be; and, indeed, the number of employees who will be running the system. Would it not be a better use of such personnel if they were to deal with the backlog of
1144
asylum cases, rather than setting up what is effectively a new counter-currency in the country? Frankly, on the basis of our experience in recent months with the administration of the passport system, I think that the Home Office probably has other administrative priorities on its mind without entering into these unknown waters. Of course, these are not entirely unknown waters because we know of the experience of the county of Kent, which does not stand well in this respect. Indeed, on the basis of their experience with vouchers, those concerned would recommend against the use of such a system.
I should like to raise a few practical points with the Government about the use of vouchers. Can the Minister say whether they have thought about the effect on people who will be vulnerable in any event of standing in queues and holding vouchers which will be available only to people who are asylum seekers? They will immediately be identified and, therefore, capable of being discriminated against and stigmatised. Have the Government thought about the bureaucratic business of being at a till in a supermarket and handing over vouchers and about the effect on those running the tills; and, indeed, the effect on the people waiting behind them in the queues? Have they thought about the practical consequences in that respect?
Moreover, can the Minister say whether or not change will be available from these vouchers? It has been put to me that they will come in denominations and that no change will be available when handing in such vouchers. If that is the case, it will reduce yet further the total level of support being given to asylum seekers. It also means that the very places where poor people would go to do their shopping—for example, street markets, stalls on roadsides and very cheap shops—will probably be out of bounds for those using the voucher system.
There are a number of other points that I could make in this respect. There is much evidence to show that vouchers do not act as a deterrent; indeed, we are told that cash is a pull factor. I do not think that there is any evidence for that—the Scottish experience certainly does not suggest that that is so. There are certainly administrative problems with a voucher system and there is the point about the stigma. For all those reasons, I should like the House to reconsider the question of whether we should be embarking upon this experiment which, frankly, I believe to be foolhardy.
6 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group which have been either moved or spoken to. I wish to discuss in particular Amendment No. 149, to which my name is also attached. Clause 91 deals inter alia with non-legal expenses. I wish to give some examples of such expenses which an asylum seeker almost certainly will have to bear. I refer to stationery, stamps, telephone, fax, the cost of interpretation and translation of documents and travel not only to access legal advice

1145
but also to case hearings. It seems to me essential that all these matters should be covered either by a cash payment or by a kind of voucher which is instantly exchangeable for cash. I commend Amendment No. 149.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I have one question for the Minister on the voucher system. I have been told that 300 new staff are being recruited to operate the new voucher support system. If they were employed to take decisions on outstanding asylum applications they could take an extra 51,000 decisions a year, which would seriously reduce the backlog. I would be grateful to receive confirmation of that. On the matter of being stigmatised—I support what the right reverend Prelate said about that—I am concerned about the children because I understand that they are likely to be stigmatised as "voucher kids" which will make life more difficult for them.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I too support this group of amendments. I must apologise to the House for not declaring my interest on Monday evening. I am a member of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. If the tribunal was run efficiently, there would be no need for Part VI of the Bill. Cases would be dealt with quickly and there would not be the drain on social security and housing benefit resources. Like the noble Viscount who has just spoken, I feel that if the machinery for hearing cases was improved, that part of the Bill would not be necessary.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I enter a slightly discordant note in this series of speeches in support of this group of amendments. I speak as someone who has been involved in social security for 10 years of my life. It is worth bearing in mind that social security is based on some principles. Some of those principles comprise residence in the UK and having the contingencies which require entitlement to a benefit. I suggest that the Government are quite entitled to take the view that UK asylum seekers do not meet either of those requirements and are quite entitled to shape the support arrangements in accordance with the needs of those asylum seekers. This is exactly what they are doing in this Bill. They are making a benefit available in kind in the form of accommodation and support for housing goods. They are providing money, part in cash, part in vouchers, for day-to-day living expenses. That seems to me an approach which is perfectly defensible. I remind the House that previous governments, Labour and Conservative, have used vouchers when it suited them, for example as regards beef and butter. They gave vouchers to pensioners and other people on low incomes when that was thought appropriate as a matter of public policy.
It is worth recalling those circumstances. It is also worth recalling that there is nothing in this Bill which prevents asylum seekers having access to the NHS and the kinds of services that they require if they have particular illnesses or other conditions. I suggest that
1146
the Government have gone a long way to provide support for asylum seekers in an appropriate form, have listened to some of the complaints that have been made and have enhanced levels of support for children and for families with children who enter as asylum seekers. I suggest that we are fretting about nothing and that we would do well to go with the flow and let the systems be introduced, as has been proposed in this Bill.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he mentioned previous governments giving vouchers for beef and butter. Does he not agree that that was done to reduce the beef and butter mountains in Europe and was not a case of vouchers being given for normal day-to-day or weekly maintenance?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I was simply making the point that as a matter of public policy governments of all persuasions have used vouchers where that was deemed appropriate in the circumstances. This Government are doing nothing different in these circumstances. They are using vouchers where that is an appropriate part of the arrangements for the support of asylum seekers.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, your Lordships will have noticed that my name also appears on Amendment No. 118, to which I wish to speak. We accept the introduction of the new support system, including the vouchers, provided that it can be properly implemented. The proposed short timescales for the introduction of the system that I have seen worry me a great deal. Some of us who have been in government have experience of the gap that can arise as between ministerial wishes and aspirations and the actual operation of policies on the ground. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, mentioned the dreaded letters "CSA". All of us who were in another place during the previous parliament have them engraved on our hearts as a result of our experiences in constituency surgeries and so on. I see some of my former colleagues nodding their heads in support.
This new system will comprise a large, bureaucratic task to be set up from scratch all over the country as people are to be dispersed as part of the policy. It will be a difficult task to get the system running smoothly and it will be made impossible if there are large and increasing numbers of claimants, as there are at present. Last year once again more applications were made for asylum—about one-third more than the previous year—than in earlier years. Fewer applications were processed. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark reminded us, the situation continues to worsen in this respect. More people are waiting and more people are applying. As far as we can see at the moment, fewer people appear to be having their claims processed.
I believe that the Government must get on top of the asylum applications backlog before they start to introduce this other policy. Otherwise the support

1147
system will not work well and it will not work humanely. We all want it to work humanely for all these people, and particularly for the genuine asylum seekers and refugees who seek refuge in this country. Other provisions of this Bill are designed to help the Government to get on top of the problem. It is not that the Government are not doing anything about the problem; this Bill forms a big part of doing something about it. The Government have a worthy target of six months for processing asylum applications. The amendment suggests that we should take the Government at their word and say, "Introduce this new support system once you have achieved the target and then you will stand a much better chance of being able to introduce it humanely and efficiently in the interests of all those concerned and in the interests of the good name of our country". Therefore I support Amendment No. 118.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I remind your Lordships of the amendments in this group which comprises Amendments Nos. 118, 149, 150, 151, 183 and 184. As has been observed by more than one of your Lordships who have spoken, these are topics that we have discussed on past occasions in Committee.
I start with Amendment No. 118. I have to say that the lone of what has been said in respect of all these amendments is one that I recognise as being entirely based on legitimate motives. However, I suggest to your Lordships that some of the fears are misplaced when one considers the problem a little more closely. The whole point of the new system is to provide for asylum seekers to be supported separately from the main social security system. The point made by my noble friend Lord Warner is a valid one. Some people claim asylum for financial reasons. I shall deal with that matter briefly. I am not being harsh and dismissive. We do not have an open door policy in this country. I do not believe that the majority of people in this country would support such a policy. I know I am repeating what I said on previous occasions, but if we do not have an open door policy for those who are motivated by economic reasons, then we must have a strategy to deal with those who come here for reasons which our political policy does not accept.
I repeat, if I lived in poor conditions in an eastern European country and I had young children, I would want to travel to this country, to Canada or to the United States. I do not despise that motive; I hope I fully understand it. However, while we understand and respect those motives, it is not government policy to accept them. It is not sensibly in prospect that any government would have a policy whereby we deal with economic migrants in the same way as we deal with those who are eventually demonstrated to be genuine asylum seekers. I hope that that does not sound harsh—it is not intended to be—but it is the essential underpinning of government policy. I repeat, I do not believe that any prospective government of any political colour is likely to alter that policy. We are not
1148
living in the age when the United States, for instance, throughout a great part of the 19th century, was able to say,
"Give me … your huddled masses yearning to breathe free".
That is not the situation in which we find ourselves or are ever likely to find ourselves.
Going on from that matter, if there is a cash-only system, an economic pull is thereby generated. I am not saying that is discreditable; it is a necessary incident of the human condition that if one thinks one can do better elsewhere—economically, financially and in prospects for one's family—one is likely to think about doing so.
Part of the point of the voucher system is to provide a viable alternative to cash benefits; it will allow asylum seekers who turn out to be genuine to support themselves properly, without economic migrants being able to make unreasonable gains from the system. I do not think I can define our policy more plainly. I recognise that others in the House may have a different view. It is from that basis of policy that we derive the present structure of the Bill and our entire approach.
I repeat what I have said so many times to your Lordships, our intention in doing this is to ensure that asylum seekers are supported in this way for a short period of time only. I have given assurances to your Lordships and the Home Secretary has given assurances absolutely unambiguously in the Commons. He has undertaken that the new support arrangements will be based on bringing down the length of time it takes to resolve an initial application in asylum cases to two months, and for the resolution of any appeal a further four months. The noble Countess is right—we have to speed matters up. That is one of the central purposes of the Bill. I am informed that the Immigration and Nationality Directorate is well on the way to achieving that target.
I am not sure that all of your Lordships will remember that Mr Straw has given a further undertaking that, if the two-month target is not met, families with children, who are of ten the most vulnerable—I agree with the right reverend Prelate—would not be brought into the new support arrangements until the target is being achieved.
I understand the point of Amendment No 118 but it is not practicable. There will certainly be a lead time to setting up new arrangements or to continuing with the existing ones. We cannot delay the decision—which is long overdue—until the day before the new arrangements are due to take effect. My quarrel with Amendment No. 118 is that it is unduly rigid and restrictive.
In any event, I do not accept the implied proposition that the new support arrangements will be any less satisfactory for the genuine asylum seekers and their families than the present piecemeal ad hoc support arrangements that have grown up, even if the

1149
occasional circumstance may arise where asylum seekers are constrained to remain within the support system for rather longer than six months.
Perhaps I may advert to what my noble friend Lord Warner said. The genuine asylum seeker, by definition, requires decent treatment. Our system proposes all-found accommodation, free; with pots and pans, linen and so forth provided; with utilities provided at public expense; with a voucher provision, made for the reasons I have indicated; and a cash payment of £10 on top. I am not pretending—none of my colleagues ever has—that that will enable anyone to live a life of luxury. However, taking a decent, fair view of all the interests involved, I suggest that it is not unreasonable to provide such a system for a relatively short period of time. If some of your Lordships disagree with that, I respect the disagreement but we shall have to part company in our policy approach.
We are trying to achieve a systematic structure which deals with people who are in serious difficulties on a proper, efficient basis. No government so far has succeeded. The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, has been scrupulous on these occasions not to make any party political points. Nor shall I. No one has managed to deal appropriately with these difficulties. The noble Lord was generous enough to say that he welcomed the general approach behind the Bill.
Again I have to put a matter plainly; I hope it is not regarded as harsh. One way of making the system more prompt and effective is to reduce the flow of unmerited applications. One way of doing that is to mitigate, if not to remove entirely, the pull factor of cash benefits and unrestricted choice of residence. I do not think that I can illustrate our approach more clearly. If we disagree, we disagree.
Turning to Amendments Nos. 149 and 150, it is a fundamental principle of the Bill that support for asylum seekers should no longer be available in the form of cash for the reasons I have set out. We have found that after the Immigration and Asylum Act 1996, when those who did not claim asylum at port of entry became ineligible for benefits, there was a fall in the numbers claiming asylum after they had arrived in the United Kingdom.
Amendment No. 149 may be technically defective. That is not my argument; I am simply indicating that the amendment is defective in the drafting, probably because there is a word or two missing. I am trying to be helpful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton. If he wants to come back with the amendment he will be able to say "I have cured the deficiency". However, that is not my point. My point is that we differ in the fundamental approach.
We wish to honour our international obligations. We are obliged to provide a safe haven for those with a well-founded fear of persecution. Equally, we are not minded to continue a system which provides for those who seek to, or do, enter the United Kingdom simply for economic advantage. I repeat, we believe that essentially these needs can be properly met by the provision I indicated.
1150
I turn now to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, Amendment No. 151. He has not spoken to his amendment, but it may be helpful if I deal with it at this stage. I am perfectly happy not to if the noble Lord does not wish me to do so.
Under the new arrangements, vouchers will be issued to the main applicant, who will usually be the person who has claimed asylum, and not a dependant or other nominated person. That will ensure the secure and efficient delivery of the vouchers to those in need. It is important where there are children that the responsible adult is required to receive a substantial number of vouchers. I do recognise that there may be exceptional circumstances—which may be what the noble Lord had in mind because he referred to this earlier—where the main applicant may be unable to collect or use the vouchers. In such cases we shall make arrangements for the main applicant to have his voucher allocation issued to another family member or nominated person.
I cannot accept Amendment No. 183, but I hope that my explanation will be sufficient to satisfy noble Lords, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, who spoke to that amendment. I accept that suffering a physical challenge may bring special needs. There is nothing between us on that. We have taken the power to make provision in the regulations on the circumstances in which support may be expected at levels other than that which is provided as a general rule. I refer to paragraph 3(b) of the new schedule to be introduced by Amendment No. 124. That will ensure that appropriate support can be given to asylum seekers with such needs, and to their families.
Where an asylum seeker or his dependants have special needs that require additional support, that will also be taken into account in the assessment of accommodation and essential living needs. It is possible that that could result in a higher level of spending power being made available in particular circumstances. We would certainly want to reflect the particular needs of a disabled person in deciding, for example, what kind of accommodation should be provided. The most obvious example would be the provision of level access for wheelchair users, but one needs to be flexible. Asylum seekers with disabilities would also be able to look to local authorities for assistance under the appropriate social services legislation. I reiterate what was said by my noble friend Lord Warner. There is, of course, an entitlement to use the general facilities of the National Health Service.
The amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton, Amendment No. 184, is the last with which I need to deal. His amendment addresses those cases where there is evidence of persecution or torture or both. Those would be tests that give an entitlement to social security benefits rather than support under Part VI. It is inherent in seeking asylum that one is alleging persecution or a well-founded fear of it. I would suggest that that is a claim properly to be assessed by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate rather than the Benefits Agency. For that reason, I cannot accept the

1151
amendment, but I should like to give such comfort as I may to those who are troubled by the same concerns so well articulated by my noble friend a moment ago.
We recognise that there will be a number of asylum seekers who have particular problems as a result of past torture. Perhaps I may refer to the helpful conversations I have had with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and remind noble Lords of our discussions in Committee when I believe that I was able to meet their concerns quite significantly, if not absolutely entirely. We are continuing to consider these matters. I repeat my earlier tribute to the work of the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture. We are still in active discussion with the foundation. Our conversations with the noble Lords I have mentioned have not stopped with the announcement I was able to make in Committee. We are having talks with the foundation about how to ensure that the new support arrangements can ensure that clients are able to continue to have access to their services.
I did take on board the further points made by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord about location near to specialist services. Part of that was met by my comments on expenses for travel. That may not be the full answer, and in a certain limited number of cases it may well be necessary to locate those who have suffered in this way close to the main sources of treatment. However, I should say immediately that that would run counter to our overall philosophy of moving asylum seekers away from London and the south-east. However, in a certain number of cases we shall be giving consideration to that, in conjunction with the foundation.
I realise that I have spoken for a long time, but I have done so in the main to honour all the concerns that have been expressed. I believe that we have provided a proper system. Perhaps I may turn to one or two specific questions which I shall deal with quickly, but if I should omit any points, I shall send detailed letters and, as I have always done, I shall place copies in the Library so that all noble Lords may have the benefit of reading them.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, asked about staff in relation to the voucher system. The figure of 300 new staff does not cover simply the voucher system, but is to run the asylum support system as a whole. Further, we have more than 200 new caseworkers to consider asylum claims. Over the next three years—I revert to the point made by the noble Countess—we shall be investing £120 million to speed up the system.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked me about items such as stationery. That will be covered by the level of spending power available through the vouchers. It is no different from that with which an asylum seeker presently drawing social security has to contend.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, asked me about cash exchanges for vouchers. That is not currently planned. As I said in Committee, we are looking at the possibility of the redemption of vouchers in charity shops, and of course the fact is that £10 per head shall be made available.
1152
Questions were asked about the voucher system itself, its pr of it levels and so forth. Those details will become clear only when the tendering exercise presently being conducted has been completed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked about facilities for HIV and AIDS victims. There is undoubtedly a problem there and we are not in disagreement on that. We are actively considering the issue, and I am grateful for her reminder. We are considering it in collaboration with the Department of Health and the voluntary sector, which has such an important part to play. Those sufferers will undoubtedly need special provision, and we are putting our minds to that.
I hope that the explanations I have given have done justice to the concerns expressed, even if I have not managed to persuade all of your Lordships of the virtue of the course we have adopted.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I thank his Grace the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for that response. I have of course listened carefully to what he has said, but I reel that Amendment No. 118 is a moderate and reasonable amendment that does not affect government policy in any way. If the Government are successful in meeting their targets—we all hope that they will be—the amendment simply would not come into force. It is only if the targets are not met that further protection would be given under the benefits system until those targets are met.
In all conscience I cannot see the logical objection to this provision. I should like to test the opinion of the House.
6.27 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 118) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 161; Not-Contents, 116.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Caithness, E.

Addison, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Carlisle, E.

Alderdice, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Chesham, L.

Astor, V.

Clancarty, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Attlee, E.

Clement-Jones, L.

Avebury, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Bath and Wells, Bp.

Coleraine, L.

Bathurst, E.

Coleridge, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Colwyn, L.

Biddulph, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Biffen, L.

Courtown, E.

Blaker, L.

Cranborne, V.

Blatch, B.

Crathorne, L.

Boardman, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Bradshaw, L.

Denbigh, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Denham, L.

Byford, B.

Dholakia, L.

Cadman, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

1153

Dundee, E.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Eccles, V.

Montrose, D.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Morris, L.

Elton, L.

Mountevans, L.

Ezra, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Falkland, V.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Ferrers, E.

Newall, L.

Fookes, B.

Newby, L

Freeman, L.

Norfolk, D.

Gage, V.

Northbrook, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Northesk, E.

Geddes, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Geraint, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Ogmore, L.

Goodhart, L.

Onslow, E.

Gray, L.

Onslow of Woking, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Greenway, L.

Palmer, L.

Grey, E.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Pender, L.

Hamwee, B.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Rawlings, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Razzall, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Redesdale, L.

Harrowby, E.

Rennard, L

Haslam, L.

Renton, L.

Hemphill, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Henley, L. [Teller]

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Higgins, L.

Rodney, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Hooper, B.

Rowallan, L.

Hylton, L.

Russell, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sandwich, E.

Iveagh, E.

Savile, L.

Jakobovits, L.

Seccombe, B.

Jopling, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Kimball, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Kingsland, L.

Southwark, Bp. [Teller]

Kinnoull, E.

Stewartby, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Sudeley, L.

Lawrence, L.

Swinfen, L.

Leigh, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Lichfield, Bp.

Teviot, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Liverpool, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Luke, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Lyell, L.

Thurso, V.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Tordoff, L.

McNair, L.

Torrington, V.

Maddock, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Mar, C.

Trumpington, B.

Marlesford, L.

Waddington, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Warnock, B.

Methuen, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Wise, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Ahmed, L.

Brookman, L.

Alli, L.

Burlison, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Chandos, V.

Bach, L.

Christopher, L.

Barnett, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Berkeley, L.

Crawley, B.

Blackstone, B.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Borrie, L.

David, B.

Bragg, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Brett, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

1154

Dixon, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Donoughue, L.

[Teller]

Dubs, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Filkin, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Gale, B.

Milner of Leeds, L

Gilbert, L.

Molloy, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Monkswell, L.

Glanusk L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Nicol, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Orme, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Patel, L.

Goudie, B.

Peston, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Grantchester, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Grenfell, L.

Richard, L.

Hacking, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Hanworth, V.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Sefton of Garston, L

Hayman, B.

Shepherd, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Simon, V.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hoyle, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Islwyn, L.

Thornton, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord

Uddin, B.

Privy Seal)

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Warner, L.

Kennet, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Kintore, E

Wharton, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Whitty, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Wilkins, B.

Levy, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Lipsey, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Lockwood, B.

Winston, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly
6.37 p.m.
Clause 90 [Persons for whom support may be provided]:
Viscount Bridgeman Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 119:
Page 60, line 29, leave out subsection (2)
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this amendment stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Cope of Berkeley. It seeks to remove subsection (2) of Clause 90. I do not think that we are very far apart on this issue. I refer your Lordships to our proceedings in Committee on 21st July when (at col. 1105 of the Official Report) the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, gave an assurance that regulations would be introduced to cover circumstances in which it would not be appropriate to provide someone with support under the scheme who otherwise appeared to be destitute.
The views on this clause of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee have had quite an airing. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, reminded

1155
us that they had been quoted ipsissima verba twice in Committee. On page 3 of its report the committee stated:
"We question the need for clause 85(2)"—
the clause numbers have changed since the Committee stage—
"which would enable the Secretary of State to remove this linchpin 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".
As it stands, Clause 90(2) has serious Henry VIII implications, and we propose that it should be deleted. In view of the earlier assurance by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, we suggest that the Government's power, in appropriate circumstances, to withhold benefit from asylum seekers otherwise appearing to be destitute would not be inhibited. I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. I should also like briefly to raise the more general matter, which we have raised previously, of delegated powers issues.
As noble Lords on the Government Front Bench will know, we are very concerned about those clauses and amendments which still raise substantial issues with regard to the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, and in particular those that have not been able to be considered by the committee. We shall debate a number of new clauses later, and I raise the matter now so as to avoid having to do so in regard to each of them. We fear that phrases used in the government amendments—for example,
"for the purposes of that section and in that paragraph"
do little to meet the committee's concerns. Some of the new clauses virtually set up totally new systems of regulation. I refer, for example, to the proposed addition of a new schedule before Schedule 8, and to the new Schedule 8 itself, which has only recently been tabled. The new proposals give huge powers for regulatory provision to the Secretary of State. The provisions arise in area after area—in terms of support, the treatment of asylum seekers and many others.
The proposal in this amendment—namely, to remove the power by regulation to exclude people from support—relates to only one example. A large number of later amendments also give rise to the objection that the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee has not had an opportunity to be heard on these matters. Therefore, we should very much like to know how Ministers intend to discharge their earlier pledge in regard to the amendments that are presently before the House.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the difficulty that arises in regard to Clause 90, and is brought to a head in subsection (2), is that an important matter is left in a state of uncertainty. We should have to wait until the circumstances had been prescribed.
1156
An issue of this kind affects the future of an asylum seeker, the merits of the matter, and the public purse. It would have been better had the Government found some way of indicating what circumstances they have in mind in the Bill. I do not know whether it is too late for anything to be done along those lines, but it would certainly help.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment largely because I do know the Government's answer to the recommendation of the Select Committee on delegated powers. The committee's comments are strongly worded and require an answer. For the present, no such answer appears to have been provided.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, my Amendment No. 121 is in this group. The burden of the amendment is to ask the Government to clarify and, I hope, sympathise with the point that I make. It relates to the virtual ghettoisation, under the terms of the subsection which I seek to delete, of people entering this country. The subsection relates to the provision for support and deals with the accommodation that such people may be offered. The lines that I seek to delete refer to the location of that accommodation, the fact that it is temporary, and the fact that the persons concerned have no enforceable right to occupy the accommodation. Under the provisions of this part of the Bill, asylum seekers would be forced to live in areas designated by the Home Office—in my view explicitly disregarding family, friends, church and other support networks, upon which women with children depend in particular.
The matter is urgent. Many asylum seekers are severely traumatised as a result of their experience. Further isolation, and even the hostility of those around them, compound their suffering. It is vital for rape victims to have access to the support of communities, and to agencies which have particular expertise and resources, as well as to expert legal advice and specialist medical and other services, which are of ten not available outside London. Asylum seekers who had already been the victims of a lack of legal advice, or bad legal representation, would be further penalised. The Home office has raised corrupt. negligent legal representation as one of the justifications for the Bill, but there is a refusal to take that factor into account when deciding on asylum claims. Again, that would punish the victim.
I do not say that there is an easy solution. I simply ask the Minister and his advisers to bear in mind and understand the situation. It can be readily understood that people who can begin to justify their case that they are the victims of persecution and rape are desperately in need of communication and social intercourse with those who are either from their former country or share a common situation. Subsection (6) is

1157
deleterious to the interests of those who are in that dreadful situation. I hope that the Minister will be helpful in his reply, given the case that I have made.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am a member of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. I cannot speak on behalf of the committee, which speaks through its published reports and not otherwise. Speaking for myself, I regard subsection (2) of Clause 90 as an extraordinary provision. Subsection (1) of the clause gives the Home Secretary power, appropriately, to provide special arrangements for asylum seekers who are destitute or are likely to become so. But subsection (2) simply goes on, without any explanation, to state that a person who would otherwise fall within subsection (1) is excluded in prescribed circumstances.
We do not know what those circumstances are. It may be that there are some circumstances in which that approach would be justified. But in the vast majority of foreseeable circumstances it would not be justified to take away the last barrier between a person who has entered this country and destitution. It seems clear that, if this subsection is to remain in the Bill, it should do so only on the basis that the circumstances are clearly spelt out in which the power to avoid destitution can be removed.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, in this group are Amendment No. 119, government Amendment No. 120, Amendment No. 121, government Amendment No. 122 and Amendment No. 122A.
I take the points which were so moderately made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and latterly the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I believe that they are entitled to the explanation which they so courteously requested.
As we know, Part VI offers the proposition that asylum seekers who are destitute—I take up the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart—may be supported under Part VI. The reason we have subsection (2) is that there are many situations where asylum seekers already have access to other forms of support. Therefore they do not need to be within the Part VI support system. For example, in April 2000, when the Secretary of State's new support arrangements come into being, some people who applied for asylum at the port of entry will be entitled to social security benefits. Others will be supported by local authorities under the interim arrangements in Schedule 8. We do not therefore intend to bring all those into the new support system all at once at the beginning of April 2000. It would be unrealistic to contemplate it. The power in Clause 90(2) is therefore included in part to deal with those circumstances, but there are others.
Some asylum seekers are nationals of countries which are signatories to the European Convention on Social and Medical Assistance or the European Social Charter. Asylum seekers who are nationals of those countries will, by virtue of provisions in the
1158
agreements, continue to be eligible to receive benefits after the new support arrangements come into force next year.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. Surely people in those categories will not be destitute or likely to become destitute.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, they might well be destitute or likely to become destitute if they did not take up their entitlements in the way that I have described. We want the power to say: "These are alternative entitlements which you must look to".
To develop the question asked, there may be other circumstances. We are considering with some care how we deal with someone who has made himself intentionally destitute. I do not believe anyone would sensibly contend that in those circumstances there ought to be the automatic right to the Part VI support if he makes himself intentionally destitute by spending recklessly whatever money he brings into the country with him. If someone is being supported under Part VI, is it legitimate to consider withdrawal of support, for example, if he wilfully mistreats the property in which he is housed virtually to the point of destruction? We may need to rely on that power, Clause 90(2), and the provisions of paragraph 8 of the new schedule under Amendment No. 124 to make regulations on those matters.
There is no sinister plot being considered or engineered. Those are the kind of circumstances in which we would want the regulations available to be made to deal with them. I say quite unambiguously that we have no intention of using the power arbitrarily to deny—
Lord Ackner: My Lords, can the Minister assist us as to why the categories he mentioned cannot be put on the face of the Bill? For example, a prescribed situation would be where there are reasonable alternative sources of funds. Alternatively, as the noble and learned Lord said, it could be where the destitution had been brought on by the applicant's own unreasonable behaviour. Those are all circumstances which can be identified and prescribed.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that is right as a blunt point. But I do not believe that restricting ourselves to the circumstances which we envisage at present being on the face of the Bill, in the way the noble and learned Lord suggests, is the correct answer.
We want the regulatory power in order to deal with circumstances which are not arbitrarily denying support to people who have no other means of alleviating their destitution; that is, except possibly in extreme circumstances where there has been real misbehaviour. That is the policy purpose behind Clause 90(2).
I turn to Amendments Nos. 120 and 122. They are drafting amendments to achieve consistency of the regulation-making powers in subsection (5) with those elsewhere where similar formulations are adopted.

1159
Amendments Nos. 121 and 122A have been debated on a number of occasions. They concern the test of the adequacy of the accommodation that an asylum seeker has when he seeks assistance. Amendment No. 122A invites us to delete the matters to which the Secretary of State may have no regard but would leave us with the option of re-introducing any or all of them by regulations under subsection (5)(b). That is counter to the criticism which we have heard on many occasions, including this evening, that we are not setting out enough of our proposed policy on asylum support in primary legislation. We think the principles set out—absence of security of tenure, sharing, the temporary nature of the accommodation and its location—are sufficiently central to the policy that they ought to be set out.
I do not dismiss the concerns raised on Clause 90(2). I wish to reflect on them, though I have to say as my immediate response to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, that we may still want secondary legislation for fine detail. Perhaps I may leave it in this way. The questions that have been raised are legitimate. I wish to consider them with my noble friend Lord Bassam to ascertain whether we can accommodate both our purposes. I can give no guarantee, but we will look at it together.
I was dealing with the later amendments. Asylum support is to be a last rather than a first resort. If there is other accommodation that meets their needs, they should not expect accommodation under the support scheme. For example, if someone is staying with friends or relatives who are willing to accommodate him, that should suffice, though under Clause 90 (6) he would not have a,
"right to occupy the accommodation".
The directorate may not take into account the sole fact that accommodation is shared with another household. Shared accommodation may be quite adequate. We would not ignore real or serious overcrowding or the fact that a large number of people were relying on very limited shared sanitary or cooking facilities. Equally, "temporary" accommodation can be quite satisfactory for some during the limited period of their asylum claim. I do not say that this is ideal but at the moment homeless families, as citizens of this country, live quite adequately in temporary accommodation under the homelessness legislation for substantial periods of time. They are of ten longer than the periods that we contemplate here.
Location is not a matter to which regard should necessarily be had. If an asylum seeker has available accommodation provided, for example, by a relative in Birmingham, the fact that he might wish to be accommodated elsewhere is not of itself to be a determining factor in assessing his destitution. We are still considering whether to prescribe other factors under subsection (5)(b), and if we do, similar considerations would apply.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I apologise for intervening and am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I wished to pursue the matter he raised that under Clause 90(6) regard cannot be had to the sharing of
1160
accommodation. I understand the point made by the noble and learned Lord. He mentioned that it might not preclude overcrowding. Can he give an assurance that if overcrowding is a factor—and it can be related in part to the people sharing the accommodation—that matter could be considered under Clause 90, or would it also be barred?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Baroness asks a fair question. Some accommodation would be overcrowded even if it were in single family occupancy because there is not enough room for a large family.
We wish to look not at whether it is shared, which in the true sense is not relevant. If there were overcrowding, it would he a relevant consideration because the accommodation would not then be adequate. On a slightly different point, some accommodation in Birmingham might well be adequate but it might not be suitable if it were unsafe if it were in an area where there had been racial attacks. Those are the kind of factors we would wish to take into account. We want to get a humane test, a fair lest which is reflective of all legitimate interests.
I hope that the assurances that I have given, particularly the indication that my noble friend Lord Bassam and I will look again at the principled objection to Clause 90(2), will suffice to induce noble Lords not to press the various amendments in this group.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I am grateful for the contribution of noble Lords to the debate. I am also grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his indication that he will look at this matter again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 120:
Page 60, line 41, after ("prescribed") insert ("for the purposes of this paragraph").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 121 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 122:
Page 60, line 42, leave out ("any prescribed matter") insert ("such matters as may be prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 122A not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 123:
Page 61, line 20, at end insert—
("( ) Schedule (Provision of Support: Regulations) gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations supplementing this section.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in this group we find Amendments Nos. 123, 124, 146 to 148 and 152 to 158. Government Amendments Nos. 123, 124 and 158 replace and add to the provisions setting out the new asylum seeker support scheme previously contained in Clause 93. Essentially, this is a framework for powers to make regulations governing the parameters and operation of the scheme. In November we intend to publish a consultation paper on the regulations, which we hope noble Lords welcome.
Paragraphs 2, 5, and 6 of the schedule extend the scope of powers to make regulations regarding the resources of the applicant that may be taken into account in determining destitution and the support that is to be provided; in other words, we want to be able to take account of cash, savings and income. That will also allow us to set thresholds as to the level of resources below which a person is to be treated as destitute, and to make valuation of any assets other than cash that an asylum seeker may have at his disposal. It is reasonable to suppose that an asylum seeker might bring certain non-monetary assets into the country, for example, valuable jewellery. We do not propose that such assets are taken into consideration in the same way as cash or savings. Such assets will be required to be declared on the application form and if subsequently sold should be declared as a change of circumstances to the Asylum Support Directorate which will offset the value of the cash against further support.
Paragraph 9 of the new schedule makes provision for notice to be given to an asylum seeker to quit property provided to him under the support arrangements. Asylum seekers are unlikely to be tenants of accommodation provided under the new support arrangements, and we need to set clear terms under which they might be required to leave accommodation, whether because they are no longer supported or because it is necessary to move them elsewhere.
Paragraph 10 makes new provisions for the treatment of any income. It is possible that the asylum seeker has an income stream which, although less that the level of support that he might expect to receive under the new support arrangements, can be used as a contribution. In some cases this may be taken into account simply as an offset in the spending power he is given through the vouchers that he receives. In other cases, for example if he is living in a full board hostel, he may be asked to provide a cash contribution.
There will be a few instances where an asylum seeker arrives in this country without any money but with assets that can be realised in time; for example, shares or property that can be sold only on an overseas market. That should not debar him from support while he has no other disposable assets available. Equally, it is only fair that he should be required to repay the value of that support if he can realise those assets (paragraph 11). I recognise that in many cases asylum seekers come here with virtually nothing in their pockets. That is not true in every case. We need to cater
1162
for the whole range of cases to protect the legitimate interest of the taxpayer. That is the purpose of the new schedule.
Destitute asylum seekers may be provided with support under Part VI in a number of ways. Amendment No. 146 provides for the Secretary of State to meet costs incurred by the asylum seeker's dependants to allow them to attend the bail hearing, in the event that the asylum seeker is detained. The reason for this is that, if bail were granted, the asylum seeker and his dependants would be directed to move direct to the dispersal accommodation on release. Therefore, we wish the dependants to be able to be present at the bail hearing so that they can travel as a group to the accommodation provided. I hope that noble Lords regard that as a decent, civilised approach to this matter.
In the event of one of the asylum seeker's dependants being detained, we have also provided for the Secretary of State to meet the costs of the asylum seeker and other dependants to permit them to attend the bail proceedings for the same reasons. The support scheme is not, however, intended to cover any such expenses incurred by the asylum seeker or his dependants where release on bail would not result in the whole group being dispersed together. This proposal is along the same lines as those set out in Amendment No. 147 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and I hope that Amendment No. 146 meets his reasonable purpose.
Following the report of the Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation about the Henry VIII powers to amend subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 92, at Committee stage we undertook to reflect on this matter. We have done so and have concluded that it is appropriate to provide that, if future governments think it appropriate to make changes to these particular provisions, they can do so only by repeal, not amendment. Amendment No. 155 does that. I hope noble Lords accept that we have fulfilled that earlier commitment. I hope that this meets the Committee's concerns and that, had the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, considered moving his amendment (Amendment No. 154), he will now find it unnecessary.
Perhaps it is helpful to deal with Amendment No. 148. I recognise the concerns behind the amendment. As I said earlier in reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asylum seekers who receive support under the scheme will qualify for full NHS treatment. I confirm that that includes treatment of a specialist nature, as well as more general medical care. There are provisions within the NHS for people in receipt of benefits, such as free prescriptions, to receive assistance with travel to an NHS hospital for necessary treatment. This would apply to asylum seekers supported under the scheme.
The legislation does not allow us to take asylum seekers' preferences as to location of accommodation into consideration. But if there is a particular reason—I repeat my response to concerns raised in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and the noble

1163
Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby—why an individual, or one of his dependants, needs to be placed in a certain area, for example for ease of access to a specialised hospital to meet specific health needs, that will be taken into consideration by the directorate before reaching a decision.
We do not believe that there is any justification for the Secretary of State agreeing to meet the costs incurred by an asylum seeker in travelling to see his legal adviser. As asylum seekers are dispersed and the cluster areas become established, we expect legal firms in those localities to have expertise in immigration law. We are discussing this precise matter with the Legal Aid Board at the moment. It should not be necessary for asylum seekers who need legal assistance in pursuing asylum claims to travel any distance. I do not believe that we should pay the kind of expenses proposed. Having heard my explanation, I invite noble Lords not to press the amendment.
Amendment No. 152 gives me the opportunity to explain how we propose to provide accommodation. I repeat, we want to provide accommodation to meet appropriate needs. We are setting up contracts for the provision of accommodation and shall take account of needs and realistic availability of facilities. We shall have regard to any special needs, not least the safety, welfare and protection of children. Obviously, we shall apply our minds to the maintenance of public health and work closely with local authorities, health authorities and public bodies to ensure that proper account is taken of these matters. I expanded our views on the Medical Foundation for Victims of Torture and in this context I do not need to revert to it.
As part of the arrangements we are making for the provision of accommodation and support, we shall be ensuring that the necessary translation services are made available. Clearly these will have to recognise the language capabilities of the applicants.
With regard to education, it is the Government's clear aim to ensure that all children of school age have proper access to the educational system. We would generally expect that this would involve the absorption of the children of asylum seekers within the mainstream educational system. Given the nature of our system, it will ultimately be a matter of detail for the receiving local education authority.
We want also to recognise fully the importance of ensuring the proper integration into the community of former asylum seekers who have been granted leave to remain. Again, we shall be publishing a consultation paper setting out our overall strategy. It can only work with partnership between central Government, local government and the voluntary sector.
Paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of Clause 92 contains a power to make regulations on matters of the sort we are discussing. I suggest that the flexibility of a secondary legislation provision offers a better solution than enshrining them permanently in primary legislation.
I assure noble Lords of our concerns over the matters that have been reflected not only in the amendments in this group but generally in our other discussions.
Perhaps I may set out our policy as regards Amendment No. 153 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley. We must relieve the pressures in London and the south-east. I believe that no one who knows of the problem in detail could take a different view. The situation in some parts of London is now so difficult that local authorities have no alternative but to rehouse local homeless families outside their area—despite the presumption in the legislation against it. There are many empty houses in both the public and private sectors, mostly away from London and the south-east. So we shall be looking for provision outside London and the south-east. We shall seek areas where there is a history of multi-ethnicity, where we can ensure the necessary support for asylum seekers. In general, we shall seek to house together asylum seekers from the same background. That goes to the point of mutual support—noble Lords mentioned the issue earlier, with which I agree—and managing such matters as translation. We have to bear in mind the questions raised in Committee. For instance, one cannot deal with Kosovars as a single group because they may be bitterly hostile to each other, as between Serbs and Albanians. We have to be careful and scrupulous about that also.
We do not want to be harsh. I have to say again that I do not believe that genuine asylum seekers who are fleeing persecution, or a proper fear of it, could object to being relocated in this way for a relatively short period. If they wish to go elsewhere where friends or relatives can help them, and receive only vouchers by way of support, they may do that. Those who are using the asylum system merely as a vehicle for economic purposes will not be happy; but that is our purpose.
Other systems that provide accommodation for people in need—such as the legislation on the homeless which serves both local people and some asylum seekers, and those social services provisions under which some asylum seekers are housed—do not allow for the preferences of the applicant to be taken into account. For those reasons I invite the noble Lord not to press his amendment.
I am obliged to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for raising an important matter in Amendment No. 156. All the illustrative figures that have so far been published have been published in 1998–99 values. They will need to be uprated to reflect the march or inflation between the publication of those figures and the commencement of the new support system in April 2000, in effect to reflect the two rounds of uprating that have taken place in the social security system.
It is our intention to make regular annual reviews of the level at which support is provided to asylum seekers, to reflect inflation and other changes in costs over the preceding year. I am reluctant to tie that inexorably to the uprating which might be made for income support purposes. I cannot speak for the long-term plans of colleagues in the Department of Social

1165
Security for the uprating of their benefits. I ask noble Lords to bear in mind that the scheme I describe is geared essentially to meeting short-term needs. Social security systems cater for a much wider range of circumstances, including people with longer-term needs. I hope that I have been able to satisfy your Lordships, and in particular the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that we are committed to undertaking a regular review of the level of support.
We intend to delete Clause 93, although its provisions will be reinstated in the new schedule proposed in Amendment No. 124.
The final amendment in this group is Amendment No. 157. We remain firm in our intention that the directorate should be able to take account of the support and assets available to an asylum seeker from his own resources or from other sources. That includes, rightly I suggest, friends and family but also charitable and/or religious organisations. Such organisations have longstanding expertise to which I readily pay tribute. Indeed, there may be instances where such organisations are funded by the Home Office to support asylum seekers under the provisions of Clause 107.
As the Home Secretary made plain in the House of Commons, there is no question of voluntary organisations being required to deplete all their finances in support of asylum seekers. We do not expect them to subsidise the work of the directorate. But it would not be proper for us to be required to support those who are or could be supported quite adequately by the voluntary sector. The potential for such double funding would not be acceptable. If the amendment were to be pressed, I should advise my colleagues to vote against it.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, perhaps I may comment on my Amendment No. 147, and on Amendment No. 146 the purpose of which the Minister has described. I welcome the outcome of the discussions held in the summer by the Minister with the voluntary agencies which resulted in Amendment No. 146.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister what the provision means as regards dispersal and bail. The head of the family could be in one place and his family in a remote location. Let us take the example of a Somali family. They arrive at Gatwick. The head of the family is detained in Tinsley House with the family dispersed to Sheffield where I believe that there is a concentration of Somalis and support facilities for them. The bail hearing may be scheduled at Hatton Cross. The detainee has to travel from Tinsley House to Hatton Cross and the family from Sheffield to the hearing at that location. Such an example makes one question whether it will be possible for the family to hold together. If they are in such different parts of the country, how will they be able to visit one another? What arrangements will be made for the family to travel from Sheffield to see the head of the household while he is detained in Tinsley House? Is the Minister
1166
satisfied that it is reasonable for a person to be detained in a location so distant from his family as to render family visits almost impossible?
The Minister said that in such cases dependants will be able to attend the bail hearing at Hatton Cross (or wherever it may be) and that the costs of their attendance will be paid out of public funds. However, the difference between the Minister's amendment and mine is that there is still no provision for the costs of the detainee to be paid. If I am right in my interpretation of the Minister's amendment, the head of the family still has to get from Tinsley House to Hatton Cross at his own expense. By definition he is destitute. How is he going to pay the cost of getting from the place where he is detained to the bail hearing? I should be grateful if the Minister would look at that.
I should also be grateful if the Minister could say whether he accepts the idea inherent in my amendment that sometimes people will be able to attend the bail hearings of third parties. I am thinking of cases where a surety is required. A person closely associated with the detainee, but who is not one of his dependants, might act in that capacity. Sureties are very important. The adjudicators normally require those involved to attend in person. If that is made impossible for financial reasons, we shall be irresponsible in not trying to correct that position while we have the opportunity this afternoon. Notwithstanding the fact that I welcome the Minister's amendment, as far as it goes, I hope that he will move a little further and accept the wider purposes of my amendment.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it may be helpful if I respond immediately. Amendment No. 147 does not deal with wider purposes. Someone in custody is going to be taken to the bail hearing in the usual way. In the circumstances that I identified earlier, we have said that dependants would also be taken to the hearing at public expense. The question of whether one can have a publicly supported visit for a person in custody before or between the bail hearing is not addressed in the government amendment or in the noble Lord's amendment. I believe that I have met all the noble Lord's concerns in Amendment No. 146.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that reply. I hope that it is possible for him to deal with the further point I made about third parties and the need for people who are not part of the immediate family occasionally to act as sureties. How would their expenses be met?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I shall certainly think about that. It is not dealt with in the noble Lord's amendment.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, I address Amendment No. 148. I was very heartened to hear my noble and learned friend say that as a result of discussions there has been acceptance of the fact that treating those who have suffered torture, for example, is of ten beyond the abilities of most health professionals and that, given the idea of introducing

1167
the dispersal of asylum seekers throughout the country, there would be acceptance of the need to meet the expenses of medical and other support services.
However, I am concerned that the noble and learned Lord does not accept the existence of the same need as regards the moneys needed if any asylum seeker is to meet with his legal representatives. Perhaps I may explain why I am concerned. The Minister has very rightly recognised the extraordinary damage that can be inflicted on asylum seekers by inexperienced, incompetent and unscrupulous legal representatives. The Legal Aid Board has stated that only specialists should practise in that area. I believe that we would all agree that it is a great advance that there will be the franchising of a core of competent lawyers in that field, which will drive out the shysters who have exploited the needs of asylum seekers.
However, we should recognise that asylum appeals are of ten complex and time-consuming. For the foreseeable future, expert assistance will be concentrated in London. Given that the clusters of dispersed asylum seekers may be far and wide, it is clear that even when expert assistance is available the clusters may result in asylum seekers having to travel long distances to receive the right kind of legal advice.
There are often expressions of horror by adjudicators where it emerges at appeal that lawyers have not seen their clients of ten enough—or at all—for the effective preparation of cases. Points have been missed through inadequate representation. There is of ten last-minute representation and judicial review applications. It seems to me and others practising in the field that that defeats the aim of the fast and effective disposal of appeals as well as being appallingly unjust if asylum seekers are not properly represented purely because they have not been allowed to travel to see their lawyers prior to the appeal because they did not have the money to meet that need. Therefore, I ask that the Government reconsider the position as regards support and this amendment.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I too welcome what the noble and learned Lord said about this group of amendments. Perhaps I may also raise a few more concerns with which I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will wish to deal. I turn first to Amendment No. 124. I am sorry if I did not put the point sufficiently clearly when I spoke earlier. The amendment comprises a new schedule, which we did not see until Report stage. It contains a great many powers to make regulations. Some of them affect people in a most precise way. It proposes, for example, the power under regulation to cease to provide support; to change the levels of support; to determine what assets should be taken account including those of dependants; and to consider what income can be taken into account.
In our view, such matters should not lie in secondary legislation. If they do, at the minimum they should be subject to the affirmative procedure. It is usually the responsibility of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation to inform the House whether in its view there should be some form of
1168
affirmative procedure because the matters under regulation are of sufficient weight to require consideration by this House and another place.
In the light of the very generous assurances that were given to us on the first day of the Report stage that the schedule preceding Schedule 8 is the kind of instrument that the Select Committee should have the opportunity to look at—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Baroness has a decent point here and I am content to adopt the course that she has suggested. Her point goes to Amendment No. 124 and I include Amendment No. 123, which is part of it in spirit. I do not propose to move them this evening because the point made by the noble Baroness is well made.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, the capacity of the noble and learned Lord to take the wind out of my sails is yet another of his very many attributes. In future I shall avoid putting an) wind in my sails to begin with. Therefore, perhaps I may rely on the engine for the other remarks that I wish to make.
As my noble friend Lord Avebury has said, we are appreciative of the concessions made by the Government concerning Amendment No. 147. The noble and learned Lord addressed quite a few of his remarks to that amendment. We understand what he was saying. However, some questions arise. First, he will notice that the wording refers to "an application for bail". That means that someone other than the asylum seeker himself could apply for it. It might be a member of the family or some other person. From the noble and learned Lord's reply we are not entirely clear whether his remarks would apply as regards an application made by someone other than the person directly concerned. It is germane for the reasons adduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, that in some cases such an application is more likely to come from someone close to legal advice who is a member of the asylum seeker's family rat her than from the asylum seeker himself. That is the first direct point that I wish to raise with the Minister.
The second concerns Amendments Nos. 148 and 152. It directly relates to the consideration given under Amendment No. 152 and we are grateful to the Government for the provision they have made with regard to meeting the travel costs of alleged victims of torture to see specialised medical people.
Our concern was reflected by what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. There are substantial sections of the country in which there are neither the necessary legal advisers nor medical advisers. Perhaps I may give an example of a city which might well be within a cluster to which the Government decided they wanted to send asylum seekers. According to my information, there is no provision for a registered legal practitioner in Liverpool or any application for such a registration. I also understand that there are no specialists in the wide area around with any experience of victims of torture.

1169
I understand that the Government intend to look to general practitioners to sift out the cases and I understand the arguments for that. However, if a general practitioner finds that the person before him is likely to have suffered torture, will that factor be taken into account in the placing of victims of torture? There are two considerations. The first is that the Government might meet the travel costs and the second is that the Government might bear them in mind in deciding where to send such an asylum seeker. We are also concerned about the support that such a person would have, quite apart from the problems of travelling to a medical practitioner.
I want to ask a question with regard to Amendment No. 156. My noble friend Lord Russell will undoubtedly return to this issue, but I want to ask the noble and learned Lord to comment on the family premium which makes a great deal of difference as regards support given to asylum seekers and that given to people within the normal support system. I take it that that will not be included. My noble friend Lord Russell probably knows the answer anyway, but I do not.
In conclusion, we are grateful for the provisions that have been made. However, we are profoundly concerned by the fact that the cluster policy will be engaged in quickly. We understand that the interim support arrangements are likely to be in place before the end of this year. We fear that the building up of legal and medical expertise will take longer than three months and therefore, if the Minister could say how the gap between them is addressed, that would be most helpful to the House.
7.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has given me the pleasant opportunity to begin with a hat-trick of thanks. The first is for his concession to my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby a moment ago. The second is for his concession to me on Amendment No. 156 about uprating. That is generous and extremely welcome. I must confess to a small amount of regret that he did not agree to write it into legislation because, as he so effectively reminded me on Monday night, one cannot always trust those who are to come after. Nevertheless, when given at least three-quarters of a loaf, the only sensible thing to do is to say thank you and take it.
I should also like warmly to thank him for his concession on the delegated powers amendment, No. 154, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley. I must also offer to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, having discussed the amendment with him before it was tabled, my apologies for not putting my name to it in advance. I assure him that that is sheer oversight and pressure of business on two Bills and I am sorry. I should have supported it to the hilt and I am thankful it will not be necessary.
There are a considerable number of other amendments in the group. Inevitably, one must try to do justice to as many of them as possible and cannot
1170
possibly manage them all. Amendment No. 157, that funds provided by the voluntary sector shall not be regarded as support, rouses strong feeling in a number of quarters in this House. The purpose of the voluntary sector is to make things better than they would have been, not simply to relieve the pressure on the Treasury. The purpose is to do good to the people concerned. If one throws that aside, one creates strong feelings and necessarily so.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, I regret that nothing more is being done on travel to meet legal representatives, especially since the cluster areas concerned will be wide—at least, so rumour leads us to suppose. I have heard it suggested, for example, that Scotland and Wales will be cluster areas.
If asylum seekers were sent to Ullapool, it would be no great consolation to them that legal advice is available to them in Edinburgh. If asylum seekers were sent to Colwyn Bay—which I imagine is a serious possibility as there is a lot of vacant accommodation there in winter—it would be no great consolation to them that legal advice is available in Aberystwyth. To make that journey, you have to go right round into England and back again. It is a considerable journey. The noble and learned Lord shakes his head, but I believe he is assuming possession of a car. I doubt whether most of these people have cars, especially if they are destitute. It is not easy to run a car when you are destitute!
I also regret that nothing has been done to meet Amendment No. 153, again in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, and to which I should have put my name. That would have left out subsection (2) of Clause 92, which directs that the Secretary of State,
"may not have regard to … any preference that the supported person or his dependants … may have as to the locality in which the accommodation is to be provided".
I understand what the Minister has said many times about the desire to move people out of the south east. I do not want to reopen that argument now, but the wording of that provision is so draconian that there is a slight risk that a provision might turn out to be ultra vires if by sheer coincidence they sent an asylum seeker to where he actually wanted to go. Will the noble and learned Lord look carefully at the words and assure me with all the authority of his office that that is not the case? I should be relieved to hear it.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that is so.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord most warmly for that. He might also want to consider ensuring that he does not inadvertently give that impression to casual readers such as myself.
That leaves me with government Amendment No. 124. There is an awful lot in that. I agree with what my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby said. It strikes me that these are very unrestricted powers. Ministers talk about flexibility. This is flexible to the

1171
point of contortionism. It leaves the Minister free to do practically anything he likes and there is little—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness that this is the fourth thank you that the noble Earl meant to give, but I was not going to move Amendments Nos. 123 and 124. I intervened to be helpful. I believe that the noble Earl is dealing with Amendments Nos. 123 and 124 now.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I beg the noble and learned Lord's pardon; I had misunderstood what he said. I imagined that when he said he was not going to move it he meant that he was not going to press it to the vote. I had imagined we would have a debate now, as we would have had in Committee, and raise issues which might give the Minister warning of points which might be made when the issue comes back.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am in your Lordships' hands, but I understood it to have been agreed that we would debate the matters when we had the benefit of the comments from the Committee. I believe that that is so.
Earl Russell: My Lords, if that is the Minister's understanding and the understanding of the House, of course I accept it. I thank him for it and apologise for having misunderstood what he said.
The Lord Bishop of Lichfield: My Lords, because I judge this to be a point of such great importance, I want to thank the Minister for his assurance under Amendment No. 152 that there will be access to mainstream education.
I am thinking of two actual groups of asylum seekers who have made asylum applications this year. I refer to several hundred Rwandan and Burundian children and their families fleeing the terrors of genocide in that region. For such children who have suffered a fearsome experience access to education as mentioned in Amendment No. 152 is essential. A good primary school can be the beginning of stability and a place where children, having undergone such ordeals, can begin to make sense of a new country.
As the West Midlands, where I live and work, is already designated as a new cluster area for asylum seekers, I want to underline how glad we are that there will be access to our schools for that very needy group.
Having thanked the Minister, perhaps I may try something on him as a second point. Assuming that he is persuaded that providing for a basic: uprating will be proper and reasonable, will he consider making the total value of such upratings available to families with children in the form of an increase in the cash element of what they receive? A small reduction in the proportion of vouchers to cash at each uprating would be a judicious way of effecting an improvement to the lot of asylum-seeking families, especially those with children.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for a number of his comments, in
1172
which he has already answered the questions that I was going to ask. On Amendment No. 148 it seemed to me that my noble friend's amendment sought to introduce private medical care, to be paid for by the tax payer. It seems to me that that should be restricted to the NHS. I believe that that was what the noble and learned Lord was saying, and I therefore support him on that point.
I believe that the noble and learned Lord is going to look again at the wording of Amendment No. 153. I certainly misread it. I understood that he was saying that Clause 92(2) would be taken by the asylum seeker to mean, "Stay put in London". At the meeting last week, I asked the Home Secretary about the Government's programme for dispersal. I received an answer which was more or less that given by the noble and learned Lord this evening, but I am not sure that that is what that subsection actually says. I wonder whether there will be any regulations incorporating the admirable policy which the noble and learned Lord was himself giving this afternoon. Certainly, it is important that in this cluster policy the asylum seeker should be able to go where there are people who speak his own language, from the same background, where he can feel as much at home as he can anywhere in this country. That is the matter to which I took the subsection to be referring.
The noble and learned Lord's answer on Amendment No. 156 was satisfactory, but wonder whether it is going to be incorporated in regulations. I did not quite hear him say that. It may be government policy, but I should like to see it written down somewhere, because I am sure that that policy is correct. If it is not to be incorporated in the statute, will it be incorporated somewhere so that his successors can follow his excellent views on it?
I support Amendment No. 157. I believe that there can be an abuse of charities and churches, where local authorities should actually be paying, but they pass the buck. The local authority should repay to the charity or church what they are disbursing. I should like to see something more strongly along those lines in the Bill.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I refer to the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, about the effect of dispersal. Clusters of people may be created who will not have access to proper medical and legal representation. In particular, I confirm what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, was saying about areas such as Merseyside and the unavailability in Liverpool of some of those specialist services.
I recognise that there have been unreasonable demands placed on the south-east of England, as the Minister himself told the House earlier on. However, we should be extremely careful, as the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, has just rightly reminded us, about the dangers of using Clause 92(2) in ways which will prevent any immigrant or asylum seeker from being able to express a preference about the area to which he will go if those support services are there.

1173
I particularly want to raise a concern with the Minister about the over-reliance which I believe he is placing on what he described as empty properties outside the south-east of England. Even if people have no preference about the property which they may be allocated, the Minister should consider carefully at least excluding properties which have been designated by local authorities as hard to let.
I vividly recall the period when Vietnamese boat-people were coming to England. I was chairman of the housing committee at that time. The immediate instinct—which was a good one—of saying that we should provide accommodation was immediately followed by the suggestion that we had empty properties which were hard-to-let properties into which we were not prepared to put our own residents and which could be used instead for those asylum seekers.
I regret to say that as recently as within the past 12 months in the local authority on Merseyside precisely the same thing has happened again. When there was a possibility of Kosovars coming to their district, it was suggested that some high-rise blocks of flats which had been empty for years and out of which local residents had been decanted because they were unsuitable for people to live in might be set aside for refugees. Of course, they were also seen immediately as potential sources of income for the local authority.
We must guard against that outcome and look carefully at the wording of Clause 92(2) which states that people may not have preferences. I hope that the Minister will at least be able to give the House an assurance that it would not be the wish of the Home Office that designated hard-to-let empty properties, already set aside as hard to let by local authorities, should be used for asylum seekers.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I should like to speak briefly to Amendment No. 148 and then to Amendment No. 157 which is tabled in my name together with those of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark and the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley.
First, perhaps I may briefly say on Amendment No. 124, which I understand is not being moved tonight, that there are major issues around the amendment and it would be useful if some sort of dialogue could be established between now and the next stage of the Bill to address those matters.
I declare an interest relating to Amendment No. 148 in that my firm has a legal aid franchise for immigration and asylum work. I believe that the Government are about to score something of an own goal unless they heed this amendment. If the solicitor has to go to the client in order to take proper instructions, the time taken has quite rightly to be compensated for by the Legal Aid Scheme.
If the Government are quite properly concerned about the related expense, frankly, a far cheaper and better way of contending with the problem is to allow the asylum seeker to go to the solicitor in his office.
1174
There is a high concentration of practitioners with franchises in the Greater London area which deal with cases all around the south coast and the airports. To have people zooming out, day in and day out, is totally counter-productive. Therefore, I hope that the Government will look at that matter again.
I need hardly remind the Attorney-General that Amendment No. 157 has been debated in this House and in the Commons at some length. The fact that it is now back on the Marshalled List is an earnest of the importance which the voluntary sector attaches to it. I speak in particular on behalf of several of the major aid charities which have bent my ear.
One needs to reflect upon the relationship between the Government and the voluntary sector, which has been put together with extreme care. That was done, first, by Alun Michael when he was Shadow Minister at the Home Office. He spent two years trawling with admirable care the voluntary sector to find out what sort of relationship would be best for it and for government if and when the Labour Party came to power, as it did.
Tony Blair has made clear that he supports the compact, as one might call it, between the Government and the voluntary sector. A key element—indeed, I would say almost the fundament of it—is that government and the voluntary sector should maintain a certain distance, each recognising the proper concerns of the other and neither trying to trample unduly upon the legitimate territory of the other. —
One of the major concerns of the voluntary sector in its relationship with government—not this Government; all governments—is getting too close; being too directly and closely drawn into the government's policies and projects. I believe that it is for that broad underlying reason that there is real alarm about the provisions in the Bill. Clause 93 states that the Government are permitted to make regulations which can take account of assets and income of those who are detained and who are destitute. As your Lordships well know, it defines assets and income as not only actual assets and income but income and assets which,
"is … or might reasonably be expected to be … available to the person concerned".
I need hardly explain to a lawyer of the eminence of the Attorney-General what a rubbery piece of drafting that is.
I refer to the words used earlier today by the noble and learned Lord. He said that almost without exception the voluntary sector should not be put in a position where all its assets are depleted. Those were the noble and learned Lord's words. Indeed, it should not. It should not be put in a position where any of its assets are depleted against its wishes. Although it is fair to say that there is nothing in the Bill which allows the Government to raid the assets of any charity, it comes close to a sort of blackmail situation if, when considering the assets of destitute people, the Government can have regard to what they believe a charity might do by way of alleviating their misery. That pulls the charities directly into the legislation in a

1175
way that I suggest to the Government—I believe that the Government may agree—is not right or proper in terms of their own well-publicised intent to keep a proper relationship with the sector.
Another comment made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams, was that government do not see why destitute people should be supported by them if that person could be supported quite adequately by the voluntary sector. I return to that point. What is the definition of "adequacy"? Why should the resources of the voluntary sector be looked at at all? It is for the sector to decide where the resources should be disposed of, where best they are used and where the demand is greatest. I believe that presents a shifting of liability from the Government to the sector. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, made the same point in reverse. He asked why the voluntary sector should thrust those responsibilities on to government. On this side of the House we say that it is the Government's responsibility and it is quite wrong, directly or indirectly, to impose those obligations on the 'voluntary sector.
I urge very strongly that, however difficult this point is, it should be reconsidered because I believe that the House would accept that the voluntary sector as a whole does not act foolishly and is in business to do everything that it can to make the best of the extremely difficult problems with which it and the Government, in their different ways, are contending. I hope that the matter may be reviewed.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, I thank the Government for having agreed in toto to the two amendments in my name; namely, Amendments Nos. 148 and 152. I wish to mention that the willingness to offer interpretation to asylum seekers in their own language is a very great offer. I thank the Government in particular for that.
It seems to me that we have come a long way in our free country when one compares the situation now with that pertaining until the 18th century when one could not even have one's own religion without ending up on Tower Hill, as did many of my family.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I shall interrupt the noble Duke, if I may. I did not accept Amendments Nos. 148 and 152. I took a little while to explain the reason behind our policy and our thinking to indicate that those amendments would not be necessary.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, I take it that everything in those amendments has been mentioned. Therefore, I understand that it is not necessary to move them.
The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells: My Lords, I wanted to speak to Amendment No. 152. However, I should say first that I was greatly impressed by the analysis of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, of the relationship between the voluntary sector and government and I wish to pay tribute to that. I look forward to the noble and learned Lord's answer.
1176
With regard to Amendment No. 152, having worked for many years in east London, I understand the imperative to spread and disperse the situation that we are facing. With the large numbers involved, it is not hard to see the Government's difficulties. Of course, they are nothing as compared to the difficulties experienced by the people caught up in this process. They find themselves in a country with a different language and a totally unfamiliar social setting, with almost no resources to put together any sort of life, and waiting in a limbo.
The exchange a moment ago was helpful. I wish to speak to this amendment because I believe that what is stated in Amendment No. 152 does not seem to be stated obviously on the face of the Bill. It needs to be supported. There seems to be a surprising lack of reference to any criteria for a designated cluster, other than the availability of suitable housing.
At the moment in rural Somerset, in the Quantocks no less, there is a substantial argument about the use of an empty school. The village in which it is found is remote from any substantial nearby towns and is extremely remote from any settlement whatever of any foreign nationals. In fact, I believe that in some of our villages in Somerset a "foreign national" means someone who comes from the next village.
On the one hand, it is right to provide hospitality in such places and to resist racism and the sentiment of "not in my back yard". On the other hand, there is a feeling among those who would be moved there that they would be substantially isolated. The importance of Amendment No. 152 is that it sets out the essentials. Those ought to be stated. They make a very remote Somerset village seem inappropriate, not only because of the lack of specialised legal and medical resources but probably very little in terms of interpreting and translation services. Certainly they present considerable difficulties for long-term settlement. Those criteria seem to me to be very helpful for people who might look at the Bill to try to understand what is involved in the decisions which the Government are making.
In east London we always found that the most important element in not feeling alien was to be near to a community that did not react in that kind of way, and where possible to be near a community of familiar people. I understand the difficulties, but I still believe that Amendment No. 152 is important and that those details should go on the face of the Bill.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I understand that we can adjourn for dinner in the middle of a group of amendments. As this is the Report stage, those who have already spoken cannot speak again. For the convenience of the House and of those waiting for the Unstarred Question, I believe that we should adjourn this debate now and return to it after the dinner break.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I believe that is helpful. I am one who is waiting to speak in the debate on this group of amendments. However, if f were to speak without having had my supper my speech might

1177
be briefer! If your Lordships are prepared to put up with the consequences, I believe that it would be convenient to have the dinner break now.
Lord Carter: My Lords, despite the suggestion of the noble Lord that speeches might be shorter, I am happy to move that the debate on Amendment No. 123 and further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Bach: My Lords, in moving the Motion, I am sure that the Chief Whip intended to suggest that the Report stage should begin again not before 9 p.m.

Cuba
8 p.m.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their current policy towards Cuba.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am most grateful to the usual channels for this arrangement and to all who will contribute to the debate.
It is some time since I tabled the Motion, following my first visit to Cuba in January this year. At that stage, I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, fresh from a first visit, was eager to wind up the debate. I am happy to see her sitting on the Front Bench this evening. However, diaries did not permit a date to be settled until now. As a result of recent government changes I am delighted that we shall hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, especially in view of her particular responsibilities for the Caribbean region.
Since January a number of events and developments have spotlighted Cuba and had a positive effect on our relationship with that country. Therefore, now is 'a good time to hear from the Government their reaction to those events, as well as any new policy developments.
The delayed timing of the debate also enabled me to make a second visit to Cuba. My first visit was a private holiday and my second visit—some two weeks ago—was memorable not only because it gave me the opportunity of a meeting with "El Comandante", Fidel Castro himself, but also because it signified the completion of negotiations and the implementation of an agreement between SmithKline Beecham Biologicals, a Belgian subsidiary of SmithKline Beecham, and the Finlay Institute for the further development and licensing of the meningitis B vaccine developed by the Finlay Institute. As a non-executive director of SmithKline Beecham, I am extremely pleased by that important breakthrough which will have such an impact on the health of children throughout the world.
That leads me to one development on which I want to focus in the short time available for this debate. Health generally and biotechnology in particular have
1178
been given a high priority in Cuba and there have been many successes with first-class research and development facilities and a pipeline of products of which the meningitis B vaccine is a leading one.
In April this year, at the invitation of the Cuban Government, and with the support of British Trade International, CARITAG (the Caribbean Trade Advisory Group) organised and led a small biotechnology mission to Cuba. The idea was to introduce United Kingdom pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, large and small, to the sector in Cuba by visiting some of the 38 biotechnology facilities grouped together near Havana and to identify projects for future partnership and co-operation. The mission was successful and recently was followed up by the visit here of a team from Cuba led by Dr Agustin Lage, the director of the Centre of Molecular Immunology in Havana. He spoke to a well-attended seminar and had a busy programme of bilateral meetings with experts in England and Scotland.
I believe that that is a most exciting development in which the United Kingdom is playing a leading role. I hope that other concrete projects will result. I want to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, for an assurance that the Government will continue to give support and encouragement to bilateral missions of that type in order to encourage further partnerships.
In passing, I mention that both the Cuban ambassador here in London and our ambassador in Cuba have worked hard on such missions. They deserve congratulations on, and thanks for, the roles that they have played in supporting the development of relations in that important sector.
In regard to health in general, Cuba has had great success as a result of its health programmes, including its preventive health programme. Cuba enjoys the lowest infant mortality rate in the region. As I understand it, Cuba is interested in developing a special health role in the region. As a result of the consequences of the Hurricane Mitch disaster, Cuba sent 400 doctors to Honduras. Doctors have also been sent to El Salvador and a number of Cuban doctors are working on loan in Haiti.
On my last visit I was able to see La Escuela Latina Americana de Ciencias, the Latin American scientific school which has recently been opened. It has 2,000 students from low-income families and from country areas all over Latin America. They spend two years at the institute and complete their medical training in hospitals or clinics in other parts of Cuba. That is an interesting and an important initiative. It may be that United Kingdom interests in the region could coincide with that initiative. We could encourage our doctors and medical professions to give help and support.
Other events this year include the visit of members of the Cuban National Assembly, led by Dr Ricardo Alarcon. I know that my noble friend Lady Young was much involved with that. She organised a parliamentary seminar which gave many of us the opportunity to offer our views on such issues as the

1179
impact of the extra-territorial effects of the Helms-Burt on legislation and human rights issues, as well as discussing communication in the areas of educational and cultural exchanges.
Among the good news this year is the fact that the Export Credits Guarantee Department has reinstated Cuba as an insurable risk for British exporters. Many of us had been pressing for that for some time, and we are delighted by that development.
Another piece of good news is the fact that in a couple of weeks' time, in November, the Ibero-Hispanic Summit is due to take place for the first time in Cuba. The heads of state of virtually all the Latin American countries will be represented, as well as Spain and Portugal. There will also be the first visit ever by a King of Spain to Cuba.
Among the bad news, however, is the havoc caused by Hurricane Irene last week in claiming two lives, destroying 13 buildings and causing damage to the banana and tobacco crops. I hope that we shall hear from the noble Baroness what the Government are doing to help and support in that emergency.
Cuba is a small country, struggling to maintain its identity in a difficult world economic scene and with an impossible relationship with its closest neighbours to the north. We may not all agree with some of the politics, but we should help. Certainly in my capacity as president of Canning House (the Hispanic and Luso Brazilian Council) I know we shall continue to encourage not only trade and commercial activity, but also more contact and exchanges on the educational and cultural front.
The United Kingdom has important historic associations with, and considerable influence in, the Caribbean. The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, has ministerial responsibility in that area. I hope therefore that she can give us a positive and optimistic view and plan for the future.
8.11 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, in speaking in the debate this evening I begin by declaring an interest as president of the UK side of the Cuba Initiative. Before I say anything about Cuba, I want to say that this will be the last time that my noble friend Lord Montgomery will be speaking in your Lordships' House. I am sure everybody will recognise that, as the acknowledged expert on Latin American subjects and on the Caribbean and Central America, he has made a major contribution in this House. It is therefore a matter of deep regret that he has to leave it under the circumstances in which he does.
On previous occasions I have had the opportunity to raise Questions about the nature of Britain's relationship with Cuba and the importance of resolving differences through dialogue and close contact. In doing so I have been conscious of the need for us at least to maintain our relations at the level of that of our European partners and not allow the concerns of the United States in its relationship with Cuba to determine the pace at which we engage in dialogue.
1180
In the time available I can raise only a few topics, but I too would first like to commend the Government's recent decision to take forward with the Cuban Government a dialogue for resolving questions on official debt, referred to by my noble friend Lady Hooper. I understand that in September the ECGD reached an understanding with the Central Bank of Cuba. That means that British exporters will soon be able to take advantage of new export credits for Cuba. The agreement, which stems from a memorandum of understanding enabling repayment of a proportion of Cuban short-term debt, owes much to the personal involvement and interest of the then Minister for Trade, Brian Wilson, and I am pleased to acknowledge that.
In parallel with those discussions on the official debt, informal proposals have been developed to try to resolve the question of Cuba's remaining commercial debt to British companies. The Government have been supportive of that initiative which is now being developed with the Cuban central bank. I hope that, as those discussions proceed, Ministers will continue to note to the Cuban Government the importance of removing this remaining impediment to UK-Cuban trade.
In the past 18 months Cuba has indicated in a very practical way its willingness to co-operate with Britain and others on the interdiction of narcotics passing through the Caribbean region. That is indicative of the ways in which Britain can develop a much closer relationship with Cuba at a functional level and is to be welcomed.
Perhaps I may raise a specific issue of concern. The Government are committed to a ban on tobacco advertising by December of this year. There is a difference between cigarettes and cigars. Cigars are a different market from cigarettes. There were 55,000 people in Cuba employed in the tobacco industry in 1999 and in 1998 tobacco accounted for 13.5 per cent of Cuba's GDP. Moreover, cigars account for 40 per cent of all the exports from Cuba to the UK each year. Cigars are sold largely through mail order, specialist shops, restaurants and hotels. Those concerned with this business are worried about the lack of clarity in the regulations affecting that issue. I hope that the Government will be able to say something on that. I shall understand if the Minister cannot respond this evening but, if not, perhaps she will write to me. It will have a serious knock-on effect in Cuba, something I do not believe was ever intended.
Of course, we have differences with Cuba on issues of human rights and issues relating to governance. But I echo what my noble friend said when. I say that I am glad that we had a successful visit in which the Cuba Initiative was able to host jointly with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy a visit to the UK by members of the Cuban National Assembly. The delegation, led by the president of the assembly, Ricardo Alacon, was able to debate with Members of both Houses, our political parties and others the relative merits of our two systems of government. It is fair to say that both sides benefited from the contacts.

1181
I hope that there will be further visits of that kind. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, will visit Cuba at the earliest opportunity. And I hope that in this country we shall see senior members of the Cuban Government, including Dr Carlos Lage, the Secretary of the Executive Committee of the Council of Ministers.
Britain also has a role to play in the closer integration of Cuba into the Caribbean region, and most particularly in relation to its possible accession to the Lomé Convention. Cuba is already participating in the present negotiations as an observer. Should it decide to proceed to full ACP status, it will be necessary for EU member states to accept that this will change the nature of its relationship with Europe. Recent remarks by Caribbean leaders indicated their desire to have Cuba inside the grouping in order that a more substantive dialogue on matters of mutual concern can take place. I believe that such an approach is equally as valid for Europe, as Cuba within the ACP will encourage a more intimate and practical dialogue within the broad-based development relationship Europe has with countries of the ACP.
Britain has an important role in enabling the Cuban people to chart their own course with the Americas. Further steps are now required by the Government to build on the much improved relationship that is now in place.
8.17 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, for asking the Question and speaking with such clarity, and also for the work she is doing to promote technical co-operation and trade between Cuba and this country. I am also delighted that my noble friend Lady Scotland has inherited responsibility for Latin America and the Caribbean. I am sure she will do well. I hope she will follow her earlier predecessor, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in taking a special interest in Cuba and the Caribbean.
I have always been interested in Cuba's social experiment and have twice visited the island in the past three years, the last time as a member of the IPU delegation. Cuba has many lessons to teach other developing countries and some developed countries too, especially in the field of public and primary healthcare. That is despite the fact that it is a one-party state with a centrally-controlled economy—hardly the model currently favoured by the IMF or the OECD.
The achievements of universal access to healthcare and the virtual elimination of illiteracy are remarkable for a poor country, as are the advances in higher education and research of international calibre as described by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper—the most famous being the meningitis B vaccine, a world first. A number of other potential developments in the biotechnical field are of great interest, some involving genetic modification—I am not sure Greenpeace would approve.
When assistance from the Soviet bloc suddenly ended in 1990, many observers thought that popular dissatisfaction with the austerity programme, known
1182
in Cuba as "the special period" that followed, would see the end of the Communist era, especially as the USA seized that moment to tighten the screw on Cuba through the Torricelli and Helms-Burton Acts. But this was a serious miscalculation. For one thing, Cuba has a fierce tradition of independence, initially from Spain, but now from the USA, which grossly exploited Cuba economically in the past while giving little back in the first half of this century. It was this exploitation and profiteering, particularly by sugar plantation owners, but also by others, which lay behind the nationalisation without compensation of land and enterprises after the 1959 revolution.
However, I return to the substance of the Question. It is clear that, partly due to the pioneer work done by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, there have been significant increases in trade and cultural exchange between Britain and Cuba in recent years, as described by both noble Baronesses. I am sure that my noble friend will tell us about the visit of her immediate predecessor, who is sitting in front of me—her noble friend Lady Symons—and her honourable friend Brian Wilson, the Minister for Trade, last year. Particularly encouraging has been the reopening, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, of ECGD funds to Cuba, although the sums so far underwritten are quite small. But it will allow us to catch up somewhat with other European countries, such as France, Spain and Italy, which long ago found ways of providing credit for their exports to Cuba.
But looming over all efforts to increase trade with Cuba is the American embargo, which extends to food, medicines and medical equipment, though recently there has been a little bit of a relaxation on the medical side. There is also the effect of the extra-territorial Act. Can my noble friend, for example, give us an update on any action that Britain may have taken, or intends to take, in the World Trade Organisation or in Europe which might persuade the US Congress to end these restrictive unilateral measures against trade with Cuba?
There is no doubt that US trade policy has been damaging to the Cuban economy. For example, it has been much more expensive for Cuba to obtain goods from Europe than from the USA, its traditional supplier. Some items are completely unobtainable because of US links to the multinational companies that supply them—this has applied to medicines and chemicals for Cuba's own pharmaceutical industry. The American Association for World Health, in its well-known 1997 report on The Impact of the US Embargo on Health and Nutrition in Cuba, states:
"The inclusion of food and medicine in an international trade embargo is a violation of international human rights conventions which uphold the principle of a free flow of food and medicines, even in wartime, to serve the basic needs of civilian populations".
The report goes on to list all those conventions that the US has broken in this embargo. The report gives plenty of evidence of the harmful effects of under-nutrition and lack of equipment; of spare parts, for example, to repair water purification plants, which have broken down. What is remarkable is that, despite under-nutrition and an increase in water-borne

1183
infections, the infant and child mortality rate has continued to improve. This is because of careful nutritional targeting of vulnerable groups and a very effective primary healthcare system which gives universal coverage.
The contrast with the situation in Iraq, which has also suffered food and equipment shortages as a result of sanctions, is striking. There the infant and child mortality rate, which was quite good before the Gulf War, has more than doubled, probably due to inadequate food distribution and primary care and lack of health education—something which is given on a personal basis to every Cuban by his or her GP or community nurse.
I should like to finish with one paragraph. This system so impressed Professor Patrick Pietroni, who is the Postgraduate Dean of General Practice at London University, that he is organising a British-Cuban conference for GPs which will take place in Cuba next March and which will provide an opportunity for the mutual exchange of ideas. More than 100 British doctors will be attending, among whom I hope to be. I very much hope that the Government will be able to give this imaginative conference their blessing. It would be enormously appreciated if my noble friend could arrange to visit Cuba at that time and look in at the conference, as well as bringing, perhaps, a Minister from the Department of Health. Although the traditions are different, our National Health Service, especially at the primary healthcare level, might find the Cuban approach well worth studying.
8.24 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, it is most fortunate that this debate is taking place so shortly after the visit of my noble friend Lady Hooper to Cuba. If I may say so, it was a very successful mission. The Cubans are extraordinarily talented people and the fact that this technological development has been put to world use is quite marvellous. I hope that there will be more of them; indeed, this should be supported most strongly.
Most of what I had intended to say has been said, so I shall endorse some of the comments made. First, I turn to the devastating effect of Hurricane Irene. On this occasion it was mostly rain 'that caused the damage; but the damage was to the tobacco crop, which is one of Cuba's principal exports. I was shocked to hear what my noble friend Lady Young said—namely, that there will be difficulties about the export of this crop because they will need help. I am not sure that they need the total help of aid. Cuba is full of extraordinarily talented people. They are very energetic and hard working.
What the Cubans need is trade and investment because that will create employment and bring the country into the international community as a fully-fledged member. I know that there are problems with the political system, but we should work with them and work towards that aim. That is why the memorandum of understanding which will lead to the restoration of full ECGD cover is so welcome. Of course, as the noble
1184
Lord, Lord Rea, said, it is a modest start. But it is a start. We have been asking for this for some time and I am sure that it will grow. We have been at a disadvantage in the United Kingdom with some of our friends across the water in the rest of the European Union. It is to be hoped that this will grow from that start.
As several speakers have mentioned, the biggest obstacle is the question of the restrictions on Cuba by this drastic and absolutely catastrophic legislation in the United States, which we all know is called Helms-Burton. This is a totally scandalous piece of legislation; it is completely against all international law. The WTO has been extremely weak as regards doing anything about it—very wishy-washy. I regret to say that I think the European Union took a rather half-hearted approach to getting something done about it. It is very much incumbent upon Her Majesty's Government to press the EU to take a much more robust line with the WTO to ensure that the US is brought to book on this issue. If we are to have a world in which we can trade together internationally, such infringements cannot be allowed. The fact that the United States is enormously powerful and tries to bully a small island nearby is totally unacceptable to the international community. I hope that we can be much more strong minded about that in the future. Indeed, that would be very welcome.
My noble friend Lady Young has done miracles with the Cuban initiative, which has been a very important event. Last year we had the inward mission from the Cuban National Assembly led by Ricardo Alarcon, to which my noble friend referred. I endorse her suggestion wholeheartedly that we should have a visit from Carlos Lage, who is a very important member of the Cuban Government. He is a talented young man. In fact, I made that suggestion in an earlier debate on this very subject.
Regrettably, I must thank my noble friend Lady Young for her kind remarks about my efforts in this field. It is correct that this will be my last intervention because, alas, I am leaving at the end of next week to go on a South American tour in order to honour some long-standing commitments which were made long before this House of Lords Bill started its passage. Therefore, I shall not be here at the end of the Session. However, it has been an enormous privilege to serve in this House. I have been here for 23 years and have pursued certain causes, many of which were related to Latin America, but I have also pursued other causes. It is encouraging to see that so many enthusiastic potential Latin Americans have participated in this debate. I may not agree with what is being proposed for the future of the House but I accept the will of Parliament. I shall retire, I hope in good order, and I hope to keep in touch with many friends in the hereafter.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, will my noble friend give way? He has until tomorrow to submit his name for election. I think that it is absolutely outrageous that he has not already done so. I for one, as a great admirer

1185
of my noble friend, hope that he will change his mind and submit his name for election to continue in this House.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for those comments. I have written some letters on this subject and my view is that if we believe in democracy we should practise it and have a fully elected senate.
8.30 p.m.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lady Hooper for introducing this debate. It is quite difficult to make another comment on my noble friend Lord Montgomery. My noble friend may have made his final speech here but one never knows. As someone said, a week is a long time in politics.
My theme is Cuba's economy and its economic prospects. I am mindful that the Commonwealth Development Corporation is operating in Cuba and this welcome initiative, supported by the then government, came shortly after my time with CDC. Given Cuba's geographical position and its considerable economic potential, we might expect prosperity. Cuba has the population needed to continue its development and it has a fair share of natural resources. It could aspire to a leadership role in the Caribbean. But the Cubans are not prosperous. Cuba's economy is narrowly based and too dependent upon tourism, its exports too dependent upon sugar, and those exports too dependent upon Russia. Fuel consumes a large proportion of its foreign exchange earnings, 20 per cent. Of which come from US dollar remittances.
Not much foreign investment—SmithKline Beecham excepted—is being made in Cuba, hard though the Canadians have tried. Yet Cuba's slow economic progress is not in our interests. Small states have problems and temptations enough. The Caribbean needs to progress and to remain stable. Cuba is patently not playing the part that it could. Indeed we do not hear the same story from the Dominican Republic, still less—if your Lordships will forgive me—from Puerto Rico.
Central to progress is the availability of foreign capital and freer access to markets. Regrettably Cuba idiosyncratically chose the wrong partner, the Soviet Union, a partner which could never have delivered a fraction of the economic opportunity available from good relations with the United States. Nevertheless, for how long must Cuba now be stood in the corner? And for how long will Fidel Castro be able to rail at his neighbours to rally his faithful? What will the United Kingdom do to speed up the rate of change in this stalemate relationship? Minor US relaxations of earlier this year have been welcome but are nowhere near enough. What additional dimension can the European Community bring? France, and to a lesser degree Holland, have Caribbean interests. A large proportion of the Caribbean peoples are Hispanic, which brings in United States domestic politics,
1186
probably regrettably, and as dollar remittances are likely to come from Castro's opponents, Cuban domestic politics also.
Nevertheless when two states, one the world's most powerful and the other small but potentially a full member of the international community, are at loggerheads we are presented with an excellent test for our diplomatic skills. For we cannot want Cuba to remain an outsider, nor be content to see the United States of America being so unforgiving. I wonder whether the Minister will tell us how she believes we will fare with our diplomatic representations and what other people we can bring to bear with us to be more successful than we have been so far in drawing Cuba into the international community and achieving a reconciliation with the United States.
8.34 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, my claim to take part in this debate is three years' residence in Havana as a diplomatic wife in the early eighties—I was the Candidate from Cuba in my first parliamentary campaign—and a continuing interest in the country and its people since then.
Most people seem to like Cuba and the Cubans. There is, even now, a residual admiration for Fidel Castro—the young lawyer defending his student friends against the Battista regime and the romantic hero of Moncada—and the entry into Havana still exercises a spell, albeit a fading one. Not many people ask why so many of his close colleagues from the revolutionary era committed suicide.
The Cubans have a high standard of literacy, their health provision is good. They are naturally enterprising in the Caribbean way. Despite its poverty, the country still turns out good doctors, and, as we have been reminded today, good scientists and technologists, architects, dancers, artists and musicians. Indeed the success of the Buenavista Club and the recent Cuban Festival in London has brought a new generation of admirers. On his historic visit in 1998 the Pope called for openness and dialogue among Cubans. It seemed that Fidel might be reintegrated into the family of leaders, and to some extent that process has begun. And yet, in March four people who criticised the party in print and called for free elections were imprisoned for periods ranging from three and a half to five years.
This July the Cuban Human Rights and Reconciliation Commission estimated that there were 300 to 400 political prisoners in Cuba. To put that in context, that would equate to 1,500 to 2,000 in the United Kingdom. In October Elizardo Sanchez, who leads the commission, was refused an exit visa to attend a conference organised by Vaclav Havel. Cuba is not a free society; Fidel still wears his tailor-made battle dress and hurls defiance at the evils of the world financial system or of the USA, and sometimes who can blame him?
Raoul Castro, the anointed heir, tells us that nothing will change if Fidel dies, although observers are getting either nervous or excited according to their

1187
natural disposition. There is tension developing internally between those who can benefit from the dollar economy of tourism and those who cannot and who live in poverty, even when they hold professional positions. So what next? Interestingly, the Canadians and the Spanish—who in my time in Havana arguably enjoyed the best relations with Cuba of any of the "Western" powers—despite their continuing close relations sometimes demonstrate their disapproval of the lack of progress since the Pope's visit. Canada has suspended some of its high level contacts as a protest against human rights violations. My understanding is that the Spanish foreign minister has indicated that conditions may not be right for the King of Spain to visit Cuba on the occasion of the Ibero-American summit, and the presidents of Argentina and Chile may not attend either.
So what should the UK Government do? One obvious thing—many people have mentioned this—is to continue to oppose the Helms-Burton legislation, which at best merely provides Fidel with the excuses he needs to defy change in his country and, at worst, can cause real hardship to his people. Developments such as the institution of direct flights from the UK to Havana are to be welcomed, especially for those of us who, like myself, remember rather hairy journeys in ancient aircraft via Miami.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Hooper and Lady Young, and the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, all individually contribute in their different ways to the creation an Anglo-Cuban network of activities and personal contacts. These are greatly to be valued. I join with those who regret the imminent departure—as I believe it will be—of the noble Viscount. When I first arrived in this House he was one of those who greeted me warmly and welcomed me to this House. I personally—and I am sure all of us—will miss his presence greatly.
The recent establishment of the British Council in Havana is a further excellent development. Can the Minister tell us whether the Government intend to expand this small initiative, which would doubtless be much welcomed in Cuba? The news given to us by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, of the development of further successful co-operation between our two countries on medical matters is also most welcome.
Can the Minister tell us what is happening in terms of the valuable technical assistance being given to Cuba in the area of banking and public finance, for example? Can she confirm the Government's intention to continue to act vis à vis Cuba in a balanced way? Does she agree that the obvious benefit of integrating Cuba into the wider world of international trade and other relations must not obscure the desirability of encouraging development towards greater democratic freedom in Cuba? While growing trading agreements and tourism can improve the Cubans' standard of living and can help to bind Cuba into the family of nations, we should not forget that democratic progress should ideally start before Castro dies in order that he can use his prestige and charisma to assist its implementation. Our pressure towards democratic
1188
development should not cease, otherwise we could see an explosion after his death which will plunge this delightful and talented people into tragic chaos.
8.41 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I shall begin by echoing the remarks made by my noble friend Lady Young about my noble friend Lord Montgomery of Alamein. The knowledge and expertise he displayed yet again this evening will be greatly missed. We on this Front Bench deeply regret his impending departure from the House.
We are indebted to my noble friend Lady Hooper for introducing this debate. Many noble Lords are already aware of her deep and enduring interest in Latin American affairs—an interest which l am keen to make clear that I share. I believe it was almost three years ago that your Lordships' House last had an opportunity to consider in detail our relationship with Cuba—thanks to the initiative of my noble friend Lady Young, whose knowledge and understanding of Cuba and the Caribbean as a whole is without parallel. I am delighted to pay tribute to her.
It has been the policy of successive governments in this country, together with our European Union partners, to support a peaceful transition to a pluralist democracy in Cuba, where there should be respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. Underpinning this vision of Cuba's future is our ongoing effort to promote a sustainable economic recovery and improvements in the living standards of ordinary Cubans. This is a goal which we share with the United States, but we have differed—and continue to differ—on the tools we should use to achieve this goal.
In particular, we have our disagreements on the American application of the punitive economic embargo first imposed 39 years ago yesterday. The Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, or LIBERTAD Act, the unwelcome legacy of the Helms-Burton legislation, is the most recent embodiment of this unjust US policy, an issue to which I shall return later. However, we would like to make it clear from these Benches that we view this legislation as an international trade issue, rather than an argument with the United States over the quintessential aims of our policy towards Cuba.
We do not believe that the United States embargo against Cuba is the way forward. For that reason, under the previous government, the United Kingdom voted with our European Union partners in support of the Cuban resolution condemning it at the United Nations General Assembly. It is important that the Government continue to demand an end to the US embargo. It is important that the Government continue to recognise that economic isolation will serve only to drive those who are already poor to further extremes of destitution and desperation and thus to invite the twin spectres of social and political chaos to take up residence in Cuba.
Turning to trade and investment, our links with Cuba must progress in tandem with our political relations. It is therefore unsurprising that we

1189
welcomed the visit to Cuba a year ago of the Minister's predecessor at the Dispatch Box, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons. Given the lengths to which successive governments went towards steadily improving and developing our diplomatic and trade relations with Cuba, her presence this evening at this debate is most welcome. It shows both her personal and ministerial commitment to the subject.
I am very pleased that the Government have continued the initiatives pioneered under the previous administration. I believe we have seen much progress as a result in the past two years. In particular, I should like to single out the British Airways inaugural flight, which took place in April this year. I believe it to be an important milestone in achieving our ultimate goal of a Cuba fully integrated into the global community.
Private investment is crucial to sustained development and economic growth in Cuba. Under the foreign investment law passed in 1995, which allows 100 per cent foreign ownership in certain circumstances, Cuba is actively seeking foreign participation in commercial activities. Although I understand that investors can still face practical difficulties, there are some excellent opportunities for establishing joint ventures or other forms of commercial association. Will the Minister pledge to encourage British investors to make the most of those opportunities, provided that British investors and businessmen who choose to invest in Cuba endorse best business practices and recognise the basic rights of Cuban workers?
Historically, when one step forward is taken, two steps backwards have often followed. However, on a more optimistic note, there has been some new flexibility towards Cuba in US policy. Last year, following the Pope's visit to Cuba, the US administration implemented measures including the restoration of direct passenger flights, the resumption of family remittances, increases in the sale of medicines and the expansion of people-to-people contacts through cultural, scientific and sporting exchanges. These measures have provided some relaxation of the trade restrictions in Cuba. They were expanded in January of this year to include such things as the restoration of a direct postal service between the US and Cuba.
We cannot ignore the fact that Cuba is the sole country in the western hemisphere with a Communist regime. However, most agree that some form of transition will eventually take place in Cuba. It is critical that this transition is a managed one.
As to human rights, I would simply ask the Minister whether, in line with the Government's ethical foreign policy, she can give an assurance that the Government are committed to a vigorous programme of meetings with dissidents and human rights groups during ministerial visits to Cuba, as well as forthright representations to Cuba's ruling elite on the need for reform.
Some of these thoughts are the way forward—the way forward being won through engagement and dialogue. It is in the common interest of both this
1190
country and of Cuba to forge a deeper relationship from which our companies, our exporters and the Cuban people can all benefit. It is through this approach alone that we shall encourage Cuba to realise its full potential in the next millennium.
8.47 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, perhaps I may say straightaway what a happy event it is to stand at the Dispatch Box for only my second debate and to hear such unanimity from all sides of the House. It is a particular pleasure. I, too, am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, for introducing this debate. The House continues to benefit from the keen interest the noble Baroness shows in Cuba and the depth of experience she brings to issues relating to Latin America and the Caribbean.
I am also pleased that the House has been given the rare opportunity to discuss Cuba in this way, particularly given the recent tragic loss of life and damage to crops and homes as a result of Hurricane Irene, to which the noble Baroness referred. We do not have yet full information about the damage caused by Hurricane Irene in Cuba, but the Cuban authorities are aware that we stand ready to look at ways of helping, should they so request.
The landmark visit to Cuba of my predecessor, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, a year ago was followed by two highly successful visits by the then Minister for Trade and his business teams. Bilateral relations between Cuba and the United Kingdom have continued to expand and grow in several important ways. Trade and tourism continue to increase, reflecting the United Kingdom's interest in Cuba, not least among its business community. Regular trade missions are now diversifying into the pharmaceutical and agricultural sectors, with positive signs.
At this stage, I should like also to take an early opportunity to express my pleasure that the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, has chosen this debate in which to make his last contribution in this House, and to acknowledge the gratitude of the House to him for all his helpful interventions and wise counsel given on issues relating to the Caribbean and Latin America. Indeed, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, rightly praised developments as regards British Airways, which now flies to Cuba. We feel that that is an extremely helpful venture. In April, we were pleased to welcome Ricardo Alarcon, the President of the Cuban National Assembly, with a delegation on a parliamentary visit. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, who I would also like to compliment on her great contributions in this area, is to be congratulated on the sterling work that she has done in relation to the Cuban initiative, and on her efforts to make that visit such a success. The Government support such parliamentary exchanges. These are helpful building blocks in furthering the bilateral relationship. I am also happy to give the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, the assurance she sought as regards the continuation of those bilateral relations.

1191
This year has also seen issues relating to official short-term debt being addressed by the Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD) and the Government of Cuba, with the possible provision this allows for the negotiation of new medium-term credit. This is good news for capital goods exporters to Cuba.
Co-operation between the United Kingdom and the Cuban authorities on countering drugs and crime problems continues to develop. British Customs officers have provided training for their Cuban counterparts. Mr John Abbott, the Director-General of the National Criminal Intelligence Service, visited Cuba in August of this year.
I should like to echo what has been said by several noble Lords as regards cultural links. These, too, are being explored following the visit by the Cuban Minister of Culture earlier this year. Now that the British Council has re-established its presence in Cuba, which we and the Government of Cuba welcomed, there is a growing mark et for Cuban culture and the arts in the United Kingdom. I hope that the noble Baroness will be pleased that this development has taken place.
In scientific co-operation, too, we are moving forward, with successful exchange visits on biotechnology taking place this year and the academic and commercial opportunities these raise. We have heard a little about those in today's debate. On the Cuban meningitis B vaccine, in particular, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, on her recent successful visit to Cuba. The Government acknowledge the important work being done in this area and will follow events—and the potential for further collaboration—with great interest. Further, I hope that the indication made by the noble Baroness that the cross-fertilisation of medical views and the connections they have engendered will of course continue.
Her Majesty's Government welcome all these developments in our relations. In time, Cuba is surely set to become one of the giants of the Caribbean. Its success or failure in finding a future path that avoids economic or social collapse will have a major effect on the region, for good or ill. The Government are conscious, too, of their obligations to our Caribbean Overseas Territories.
I understand the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, about Cuban cigars. Early indications from the Department of Health suggest that her anxieties about the negative effects do not at the moment appear to be justified. However, I invite the noble Baroness to contact the Department of Health in relation to pursuing the matter further.
When my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary met the Cuban Foreign Minister, Perez Roque, at the EU/Latin America and Caribbean Summit in Rio in June, he took the opportunity to convey to the Cubans a strong message about that country's poor record on civil and political rights. But he was able to acknowledge the important role that Cuba could play economically in the region, suggesting that Cuba could be the motor for the future
1192
economic well-being of the Caribbean. In this, as with our traditional Caribbean partners, the UK will seek to play its part.
In saying that, the Foreign Secretary also echoed the words of His Holiness the Pope when he began his historic visit to Cuba in January last year. He called on Cuba to open up to the world and on the world to open up to Cuba. That is why we give our wholehearted support to Cuba's participation in events in the international arena, such as the Rio Summit. Cuba and the other 47 participating countries signed up to an "action plan" document at the summit. It covered many of the areas in which we are working in partnership with Cuba and our EU partners; for example, in both the economic and the human rights fields. Another important area covered in the summit "action plan" was science and technology. That issue is one that several noble Lords have highlighted in this debate. Cuba's enthusiastic co-operation with the UK in the field of biotechnology, as we have seen, is the sort of practical co-operation that the spirit of Rio was trying to engender.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, rightly emphasised some of the challenges that are still left as regards our relationship with Cuba. In terms of our bilateral relations, the UK, as I have outlined, is warming in its relations with Cuba. However, this Government make no bones about those aspects of the relationship with which we are much less than happy. I firmly believe that none of the other aspects of the bilateral relationship will function properly if we do not also work hard at the complex of issues in our political relations.
With our EU partners, the United Kingdom believes that dialogue and co-operation—not embargo and isolation—is the most effective way of encouraging the political and economic evolution we wish for Cuba. The EU common position codifies this clear statement of the EU's commitment to intensify its dialogue with the Cuban authorities and all sectors of Cuban society. The common position's flexibility allows EU partners to pursue their own bilateral relations within its overall framework. We want to be Cuba's partner—with full co-operation dependent on improvements in human rights and fundamental freedoms—by discussing all issues of mutual interest and concern in a spirit of friendship and co-operation, with give and take on both sides.
My noble friend Lord Rea, the noble Viscounts, Lord Montgomery and Lord Eccles, the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and others all raised the issue of the United States relationship and Helms-Burton. The US Administration has been left in no doubt that we do not support extra-territorial legislation; nor do we agree with its policy towards Cuba. At ministerial level, our most recent exchanges—indeed, my own exchange in Washington, together with those of my noble friend Lady Symons—have raised these issues with some vigour with our American friends. Her Majesty's Government have taken every opportunity to raise the matter, which is one upon which obviously we do not agree.

1193
On economic, social and cultural rights, Cuba can claim to have made significant achievements. However, we and our EU partners attach great importance to civil and political rights and respect for fundamental freedoms, on which Cuba's record, sadly, remains poor. We are therefore keen to work in partnership with Cuba on its international human rights obligations and to encourage an end to arbitrary detention and the unconditional release of prisoners; freedom of expression; free media; and co-operation with the UN human rights mechanisms. In this regard, I welcome the recent talks at senior level on a range of UN issues, including human rights, in the margins of the UN General Assembly meeting in New York.
In closing this debate, I repeat my thanks to the noble Baroness for giving the House the opportunity of discussing Cuba. I reaffirm that the hallmarks of this Government's policy towards Cuba are frank and respectful critical dialogue coupled with practical cooperation in areas of mutual interest. I know that both our countries seek to develop the relationship in a sustained way, even when our views do not always coincide, entitled as we are to express our own views. In this spirit, we respect Cuba's right to the view it has of its current situation. Through our increasing contact, this Government will go on to learn more about the Cuban reality. However, we are hopeful that our Cuban counterparts will signal their desire to continue to work with us in an open and constructive way on all these issues so that a greater understanding might evolve of our own concerns as we work towards building an effective dialogue and co-operation.

Immigration and Asylum Bill
9.1 p.m.
Further consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 90.
Debate resumed on Amendment No. 123.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I should like to return to the grouping, which carries with it such a wide range of amendments, and speak to Amendment No. 157, which stands in my name. However, I should like to remain able to move it formally when the time comes.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, in a masterly understatement, said earlier that a rather important matter has been left in a state of uncertainty. I have the feeling continually in this debate that we are dealing with a good many important matters, but we are being swept away by the great galleon of government. I am a small cabin cruiser sailing across the bows just to warn the Government that there are very important issues disguised in these amendments.
The noble and learned Lord said that he did not want to be harsh on asylum seekers and that he did not want to be harsh on non-governmental organisations. We take that point and the noble and learned Lord's great sincerity. But, equally, we must re-emphasise the
1194
fact that the NGOs and the voluntary agencies are concerned only with genuine asylum seekers. There is no question of them being concerned with the wider number of immigrants which is sometimes implied. So I return to the subject of Clause 93—organisations which assist refugees, including young people among refugees. Those organisations are very concerned about the Government's intentions in this clause. I realise that the subject is now being moved to Paragraph 5(b) of the schedule and we may need to return to it later.
When I worked in the voluntary sector in the 1980s we saw the growth of government support for NGOs and we welcomed it. We recognise that there is informal co-operation with the NGOs at every level. But NGOs and voluntary agencies are not agencies of government. They are there to top up inadequate support and provision and to reinforce what the Government are not able to do. They are not a substitute for it or for the lack of it. I should like to quote from a note I received from the Children's Consortium which represents all the children's agencies in this campaign for refugees. It states:
"The purpose of the work with asylum seeking families with children is to make good some of the gaps in statutory provision, to try to ensure minimal damage to the lives of such families in a difficult period of transition and uncertainty, and to offer prospects of hope and personal development which can best be provided by the staff and volunteers of voluntary projects".
In some cases the refugees themselves are the voluntary organisations. There is no one to support them except their own communities. They set up community organisations and ad hoc committees to meet particular circumstances. I do not need to remind noble Lords or the noble and learned Lord that the voluntary sector already carries this heavy load. It genuinely feels that it is again being coerced and co-opted into becoming service providers, not alongside government but somehow within the great panoply of government. That has been the trend over the past few years. NGOs are not surprisingly concerned and they raise the matter again and again. This is another such occasion. We have heard the reassurances. The Minister in another place, Mike O'Brien, seemed to be genuinely aware of this problem, but it was an inadequate assurance. I just hope that the noble and learned Lord will have some more encouraging response to make today.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I support what my noble friend Lord Sandwich has said. I should like to put a specific question to the Government. Can they confirm that their new schedule, which may result from Amendment No. 124, will not by its paragraphs 2 and 5 force destitute people to rely at least in part on resources coming from charities and NGOs? It would be wonderful if the noble and learned Lord could reply to that point this evening. If he cannot, I hope that it will be seriously considered.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, this is a large group of amendments, starting with Amendments Nos. 123 and 124. I am not sure whether I am allowed to do more than express gratitude to the noble and

1195
learned Lord the Attorney-General for agreeing to withdraw those two amendments. They are extremely important. They represent a rewriting of Clause 93, as has been explained. But it is obviously a very careful rewriting. There are some small changes which make one wonder why they have been made—whether it is merely for the purpose of tidying up the English, or for some other reason. We shall have an opportunity to return to them later.
The next amendments in the group are government Amendment No. 146 and Amendment No. 147—which has already attracted some debate as to whether it is adequately covered by Amendment No. 146. I have nothing to add to the comments already made.
Amendment No. 148, moved by the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, has attracted a great deal of attention both at this stage and previously. The first part deals with expenses for specialist medical care. The noble Duke was correct in saying, in a slightly abbreviated form, that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General had said that such expenses would be payable through the National Health Service under ordinary arrangements. So presumably we do not need to trouble ourselves about that.
But the position remains difficult with regard to the second part of the amendment, which deals with the costs of travel to appointments with legal representatives. Like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bath and Wells, I too have heard of the controversy in Somerset regarding the school that is being considered for conversion. I am not sure exactly how many miles it is from Bristol—25 or 30, I believe. Travel by public transport over that kind of distance in that kind of area is expensive. If one does not have a car, it is difficult; and of course the journey is expensive by taxi. It is not something that people in this kind of situation can be expected to do.
I am not sure whether Bristol, or for that matter Bath, has the necessary number of sufficiently qualified legal experts who are able to deal with the kind of specialist cases about which we are talking. As we have heard at some length, it is not just any solicitor who can deal with these cases. A whole section of the Bill is devoted to the exclusion of a large number of persons who might otherwise be considered immigration advisers. So the Bill acknowledges that this is a specialist matter. I do not know how many people are regarded as qualified in this specialist way in either Bristol or Bath. Even assuming that there is a sufficient number to deal with the individuals concerned, it is still an expensive business, quite apart from people having to travel right across the country to London. It is relatively local travel, but it is still expensive. It has certainly been my experience that one visit to a lawyer is not always sufficient to deal with a problem. It is sometimes necessary to go a number of times before one arrives at a solution. So that is a difficult aspect at local level, quite apart from the points that have already been made regarding wider travel.
1196
I have added my name to Amendment No. 152, and I share the concerns that have been expressed. However, the Minister's words were somewhat reassuring.
Amendment No. 153—in regard to which I was grateful for the support of the noble Earl, Lord Russell—relates to preferences being expressed as to where a supported person would like to be accommodated. Like the noble Earl, I thought that, without this amendment, if any supported person was unwise enough to express a preference, it might make matters difficult for the Secretary of State. A brief intervention from the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General appeared to be of a reassuring nature. However, I should like to hear slightly more about why he thinks it so incredibly damaging as to require a law against it, and why an unfortunate person who finds himself in this position should be debarred from expressing a preference for one town rather than another because he has relatives or compatriots there, or feels that he has a connection with that town, or merely wants to go with his compatriots who have arrived with him. That seems a draconian position. I understand that the Secretary of state will not always be able to fulfil such requests. There is no question of that and we do not argue for it. But it seems extremely unreasonable that they should not be allowed to express a preference, even if it is not held against them afterwards.
On Amendment No. 154, I was grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his support. However, as he rightly said, Amendment No. 155 seems to move in the direction of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers which the amendment concerns. I am glad to see it and grateful for it. Like the noble Earl, I was reassured by the reaction to Amendment No 156.
That brings me to Amendment No. 157 which is the most difficult in the group to dismiss or be reassured about. There were some careful words from the Attorney-General at the beginning of our debate some time ago but they did not seem to me to take us far. I can think of no other instance where, if a charity gives money to a deserving person, that person then has their social security or other benefit taken away from them. But that is contemplated here. I admit that it is not set out in the Bill that it should happen but it is open to the Secretary of State to interpret the Bill that way.
In the re-write of Clause 93, which is incorporated in the new schedule—
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. It is in the Bill. Clause 93(3)(b) explicitly states that the Government or the authorities are entitled to look at not only what a destitute person has but what they may have. It is not even a question of taking account of what a charity may have given them; they have the right to consider what a charity might give them.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, yes, I was going to say that the schedule, having incorporated Amendment No. 124, repeats the words with very slight variations which do not seem to be other than a change of English. I do not believe the legal meaning is altered.
It seemed to me that either in Amendment No. 124 or Clause 93 the phrase states that if the support is haphazard, if I happen to pass an asylum seeker in the street and give him £10, he could not reasonably expect that to happen. So it would not be discounted from the point of view of his support. If, on the other hand, a charity sets itself up, among other things, to support people in that situation and begins regularly to assist people in a certain area or situation who fall within the provisions, it will not be long before the authorities are able to say: "Ah! You have an expectation of that. Every other refugee who has been in your situation for the past six months has received help from this or that charity, so you must expect it. Therefore, we are knocking £X off your support".
The Bill does not say that money given by charities shall be treated in that way. But refusing to put it or anything like it into the amendment fuels the concern of charities and others that it might happen.
Valuable though it may be to give haphazard support, as I have described it, to deserving cases from time to time—and no doubt we all do it—targeted and organised support, organised by people who know what they are doing and can discriminate between the good and the worst cases is more effective. Being a chartered accountant, I have to point out that it is sometimes more tax effective as well if it is done through a charity. I do not believe that was in the Government's mind, but it is more effective in the way that it works in terms of relieving the poverty and distress at which it is aimed.
That kind of thing worries me about the wording in Amendment No. 124 to Clause 93 at which the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, is aimed. It is not a matter which we can brush off. It has worried many charities and many people, including myself, and the Government must pay careful attention to it in the course of looking at the wide range of amendments.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, perhaps I may raise a quick point on one matter that I have been mulling over while the debate has proceeded. If charitable funds are to be taken into account, will not the charities consider them to be a replacement of public funds and therefore not charitable? Is it possible that the Charity Commission will consider any donations of this kind not to be charitable and, therefore, that the charities which provide such funds are acting illegally?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, a charitable organisation would not be acting illegally in those circumstances. In the nature of things, many charitable functions which are performed by charities can be regarded as "a replacement of public funds" but would not be illegal on that basis.
1198
I tried to pre-empt many of the questions that have been raised. Therefore, I deal with such questions as have been raised which seem to me to have been highlighted. First, I take up the observation of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, relating to charity. Perhaps it is useful occasionally to remind oneself of the text on page 63 of the Bill. Clause 93(3) reads:
"The regulations may also make provision requiring the Secretary of State, except in such circumstances (if any) as may be prescribed, to take into account, when deciding—
(a) whether to provide support under section 90".
Pausing there, Clause 90(1) refers to those who are destitute or likely to become so. Therefore, that is the sub-text of Clause 93(3)(a). Next, we see,
(b) the level or kind of support".
What we need to do—I would have thought that most of your Lordships' thoughts are concentrated on this—is to look at the factual circumstances which subsist. I give an example. I suggest, and hope not to be contradicted, that if an asylum seeker has accommodation that is provided by a charitable organisation, the fact that that accommodation has been provided and assured by a charitable organisation for, say, six, nine or 12 months is plainly a part of the factual matrix which any prudent dispenser of public funds will take into account.
I give one or two further examples. It is not our policy to require those who are destitute, or may become so, to solicit support from charities, but quite a number of charitable organisations are grant-aided by the Home Office. It seems to me to be entirely reasonable and proper, as a prudent steward of public funds, to say that charity x is partly funded by the Home Office and is providing support of a level or kind that should be taken into account. I see no proper call for the public purse to be struck twice in those circumstances. All that the regulations are able to do is take into account—I underline those words—when deciding whether to provide support and what kind, any support or assets which are, or may reasonably be expected to be, otherwise available.
If one is looking at actual or immediately prospective need it is perfectly sensible, right and fair to say that an individual has support from a charity which has indicated that it will provide guaranteed accommodation—as a charity that can be relied upon—for three, six or nine months and also a level of support. That support may not be simply financial, because here we have in mind the level or kind of support. Perhaps I may finish my point before noble Lords intervene. If one goes on to point out to all those who are concerned with asylum seekers that they are grant-aided, why should one not take it into account? I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is first and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is second.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. I have no argument with the circumstances described in which someone has accommodation and the charity providing it has been grant-aided under Clause 107. That is entirely reasonable. However, I am concerned with those circumstances in which a charity has not

1199
been grant-aided under Clause 107 and someone does not have accommodation but, looking at the words of the Bill,
"might reasonably be expected to be",
provided with accommodation. Those are the areas of concern to the voluntary sector. I am sure the noble and learned Lord will see the radical difference between the two. One would hope to be able to rejig the arrangements so that the fears on the second score do not impinge on the perfectly reasonable points the Minister made on the example he gave.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, reasonable expectation is a perfectly legitimate concept well known to law—not "rubbery" to repeat the phrase used earlier. If a charity has a history of a certain level or kind of support, it is entirely legitimate for the directorate to say, "It is highly probable that you will be supported in one way or another by this charity". It partly depends on the double funding point as to whether the money comes from the Home Office. But if a long established charity has as its only charitable purpose and function the assistance of asylum seekers from, let us say, the Roma community in Czechoslovakia, it is reasonable to take into account that it has a good track record on providing the level and kind of support about which we are thinking.
Throughout all sections of this House, our common purpose is to provide a decent level of life—I move myself away from support—to those who really need it. If that decent level of life is assured by funds, charities, churches or various organisations which are not publicly funded, I see no difficulty in recognising those facts or those reasonable expectations.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for saying that it is not the policy of the Government to expect those who would otherwise be destitute to rely on the voluntary sector. But perhaps I may ask him to compare his words with those of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, on Amendment No. 115. I say no more at present; we may return to the point at another stage.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, perhaps I may respond to the noble Earl's specific example.
Lord Bach: My Lords, this is Report stage and not Committee. Perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me for reading from the Companion. It states:
"Only the mover of an amendment speaks after the Minister on Report save for short questions for elucidation to the Minister before he sits down".
I know that the noble Lord will put his comment in the form of a short question.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, it is this. The Minister used the phrase "highly probable" or "assured" in respect of a charity whose objects were extremely narrow. The noble and learned Lord gave the example of Romanies. Does he accept that the anxiety expressed by those supporting the amendment
1200
are for the much wider group of charities where there is no assurance, no high probability and no narrow objects?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we a t tend, as I asked noble Lords to do, to the language of the Bill. It states that the Secretary of State by the regulations may take into account,
"the level or kind of support to be provided".
When he is deciding that he may look at,
"support (or assets) which … are, or might reasonably be expected to be, otherwise available".
That seems entirely the kind of enabling provision which gives flexibility to the Secretary of State or the directorate when coming to its conclusion. I see nothing objectionable in it. One needs to establish fact; in this context that includes what is reasonably likely to be an outcome.
When one is talking about public funds, as one is, and contemplating our common objective to make sure that people have a decent—I have conceded many times that it will never be luxurious—opportunity of subsistence, this is a perfectly proper and prudent regulation on which to rely.
There were other matters of interest. For instance, the refugee arrival project gives initial reception facilities at Heathrow with Home Office funding. It is perfectly legitimate for anyone who has a decision to make to take that into account. That is not oppressive. Without reluctance or feeling aggrieved, we fund two charities. Other charities do not have that funding. But if they did and they used their moneys for the charitable purposes which the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, indicated, it is perfectly reasonable for the decision-maker to take that into account.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, specifically asked me whether persons would be forced to rely on charities. I hope that I reassured him in my preceding answers that that is not the case. The noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, with his enormous knowledge of local government matters, referred to property which is hard to let. I agree that some of the property he spoke about is in the category that he described. But some property is hard to let because of its poor condition, as the noble Lord described. Some of it is hard to let because there is no local demand. There is no doubt about that. Demographic changes demand changes. If the property is hard to let because of its poor condition, I agree that it would not be adequate. But where there is no local demand for otherwise perfectly good property, that would be perfectly adequate for the class of asylum applicants of whom we are speaking.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, asked about the policy on uprating. We intend to review it annually. That is part of the inherent flexibility of the regulatory powers. I hope that I have made that assurance as plain as I can. We then come to the question of preferences. I agree that when one looks at the language of the Bill one questions why it is in that form. It is because it is not required to have regard to preferences, but we can have regard to circumstances.

1201
So we can look at the background circumstances of a group of asylum seekers to disperse all those with a common ethnic, linguistic or territorial origin to a place common to all of them. That is looking at the circumstances and not preferences.
The right reverend Prelate asked me specifically about uprating. The question was whether or not a proper balance of cash and vouchers would be kept under review. I cannot say what the outcome will be, but I am happy to confirm that the balance of cash and vouchers will be kept as part of the review.
We now turn to the question of legal services. The noble Baroness is not here. She asked a question of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, about access to legal services. It was referred to on our resumption by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. It is sometimes easy to overstate the problem. There are medical and legal sources across the country. When we look at the clustering destinations, obviously one matter we shall have in mind is whether or not there is a settled immigrant community which, because of that, already has expertise in that particular area of law. I agree with the noble Lord that it is not an easy area of law and one needs to have expertise.
There are quite a few communities throughout the country—even, I say to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in West Wales—which have been well settled since 1945. I shall finish what I wish to say because I am going to treat myself to an anecdote. I believe I am entitled to do so. One of the first cases that I did at the Bar in West Wales was a right-of-way dispute—they always are. My clients had two languages. One was Polish, with which I am not familiar, and the other was Welsh, with which I am familiar. He could not speak English at all. There are well-settled communities out of London. There is life outside London. It is not the centre of the discovered universe. There are people with medical and legal expertise outside London, as I know from my experience of 13 years at the Bar on the Wales and Chester circuit.
We want people to have access to legal services. We do not want them to be troubled by long, expensive journeys. We have looked at the priorities and I am bound to say that in doing so my desire to accommodate was prioritised in what the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, told me about the victims of torture. I believe that there are many areas outside London—I could specify them, but it might be invidious and raise undue alarm or prospects—where local solicitors are well capable of dealing with these problems.
The noble Earl is about the incur the wrath of my noble friend Lord Bach. I shall sit down.
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps I may clear my name. I was by no means intending to impugn the
1202
multi-cultural character of West Wales, which I know well. I referred to the difficulty of rural Welsh transport.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I take that point, but it is part of a view, which is sometimes held and expressed, that the only provision of good medical service is in London and that the only provision of expert legal advice and service is in London, and that is simply not true. There are many communities from different parts of the world in, for instance, Bradford, Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool and Leicester, filled with people who have come from beyond our shores and who have good access to legal and medical services. Sometimes it is a shade disagreeable to overlook that.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way and for his kindness. I should point out the fact that I have a Welsh grandmother, otherwise I should not dare to intervene in what he is saying about Wales. I want to ask him one question. I understand that there are no franchises for legal representation in Wales. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord can confirm that, but that is the basis of our concern. It is not that we do not believe that Wales is a wonderful country full of lively people; we do.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there may well be no franchises in certain areas of the country. That is one of the significant points in what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is doing. In insisting that there should be available legal services on a franchise basis, there is careful consultation with the Law Society. Cardiff is the capital city of Wales and there has, for instance, been a long established Somali community there for the best part of this century. Expertise is available outside London and I cannot restate that point firmly.
I have dealt with preferences. The question of the consequences of torture was reverted to and I have made that reasonably plain. I shall not trespass further on your Lordships' time. A specific question was asked about family premium. We believe that the level of support to be provided will be adequate for the needs of families and will not include the family premium.
Those seem to me to be the headline points raised in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, was right in saying that it is a disparate group of amendments. They are not without importance, as I hope I have recognised in the length of my reply. The noble Lord said that one visit to a lawyer was frequently not enough. If he had said that one short visit to a lawyer was frequently not enough, after two days arguing against the unarguable in front of the Committee for Privileges, I can only say that I respectfully agree.
I indicated to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, that I should not move Amendments Nos. 123 and 124.
[Amendments Nos. 123 and 124 not moved.]
Schedule 8 [Asylum Support: Interim Provisions]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 125:
Page 132, line 13, after ("authorities") insert ("or local authorities falling within a prescribed description of authority").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cope, indicated that the earlier group of amendments was long. This one beats it. It includes Amendments Nos. 125 to 144, 145A, 279, 312 and 312A.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, may I ask, with the leave of the House, that Amendment No. 279 be decoupled from these amendments, because it has nothing whatever to do them?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Yes, of course, my Lords, although I am bound to say that the fact that one amendment in a group has nothing at all to do with the others has never been grounds for disqualification! When I come to Amendment No. 279 I shall therefore omit it from our present considerations.
The group is numerically fairly hefty. Perhaps I may just indicate how we are intending to move from the existing support arrangements to the future arrangements contained in Part VI of the Bill. The Asylum Support Directorate is well on track in putting into place the new support arrangements which will have effect from 1st April 2000. We are in discussion with landlords over the provision of accommodation, and intend to be inviting tenders soon. We are well on the way to establishing a system for the provision of vouchers. We are also well along the way to producing agreed plans to establish support arrangements with the voluntary sector and local authorities.
Generally, those people who have claimed asylum at the port of entry and are in receipt of social security benefits will continue until the first decision on their application for asylum, even after the new support arrangements are in force. If they stay in the country pending the outcome of an appeal after 1st April 2000, they will move over to the new support arrangements.
I believe that it is common ground that the present arrangements are close to breakdown, and we shall not continue to accept that. Schedule 8 therefore makes provision in the period between a date shortly after the Bill receiving Royal Assent and the main provisions coming into force in April 2000, in order to ease the pressures faced by some particularly hard-hit local authorities. That will provide legislative underpinning for the voluntary arrangements which the Local Government Association and the Association of London Government have been working on. I pay tribute to the work they have done in very difficult circumstances.
We need to replicate in Schedule 8 much of the substance of the provisions in the main body of Part VI. That is why —and I repeat the apologies given by my noble friend Lord Bassam and my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer—we have had to table so many amendments, many of which, of course, address mere points of drafting. I hope that the new draft schedule
1204
circulated by my noble friend Lord Bassam last week will have helped noble Lords find their way through the detail.
The interim provisions in Schedule 8 achieve two things. First, they provide a sound legal basis for the provision of support to destitute asylum seekers by local authorities. They replace the duties tinder the National Assistance Act 1948. Secondly, they are a means of assisting hard-pressed London boroughs and certain other authorities in the South East to disperse their case load. They do that in a number of ways. The Secretary of State can set a ceiling on the number of asylum seekers which certain types of local authority are required to support. Once the prescribed maximum is reached, they can be transferred to another local authority which has not reached its maximum.
There is a power to prohibit local authorities placing asylum seekers in areas already overcrowded with asylum seekers. One sees significant problems which inure to no one's benefit when one looks, for example, at the overload of asylum seekers in the Dover area. The provisions further allow the transfer of case responsibility between two local authorities on a voluntary basis. The Bill allows for the dispersal of any asylum seeker who makes his claim for support to the Secretary of State at the same time as making his application for asylum at the Immigration and Nationality Directorate.
When the interim arrangements come into effect, local authorities' responsibilities under the National Assistance Act 1948 and the Children Act 1989 will end, and those persons will be deemed to have been accepted for support under the interim arrangements. That does not mean, I repeat, that people with a need for mainstream social services support will lose that protection. Amendments to paragraph 11 of the schedule, as your Lordships will have seen, provide for regulations which could specify that children who are in need—for example, because they have been the victims of abuse—would still be entitled to help from local social services.
The period of consultation has just finished. We are reflecting on the comments received and obviously we want to take them into account. In particular, we want to work closely with local authority associations to ensure that the dispersal of asylum applicants away from pressure points is carried out in an orderly and decent way. There has also been severe pressure—quite apart from that experienced by the south-east local authorities—on homeless persons units.
I deal now with the specific amendments. The Local Government Association and the Association of London Government have asked us to broaden the scope for the dispersal of asylum seekers under the voluntary arrangements. Amendment No. 312 is designed to facilitate that request. It allows the Secretary of State to modify the provisions of the homelessness legislation in respect of applicants who are persons subject to immigration control during the immigration period.
We shall be looking to achieve three things. First, we are providing a power to enable a local authority to transfer asylum seekers to another authority by

1205
agreement with the other authority. Secondly, the provision can be used to enable local authorities to have regard to the fact that accommodation is to be temporary, pending resolution of the asylum claim, and to enable local authorities not to have regard to any preference of the applicant as to the location of the accommodation. Thirdly, there is a power to modify the existing provisions on out-of-area placements so that an authority will not have to consider whether accommodation is available in its own district if it has the agreement of another local authority to place the applicant in the accommodation of that other authority.
We are establishing voluntary arrangements with the consortia of local authorities. As I said earlier, that is one of the building blocks for the new arrangements to be operated after 1st April 2000. It is quite impossible for the new directorate to take on board all existing local authority cases on that date. The transitional arrangements in Amendment No. 312A provide for the phased transfer from local authorities to the directorate over succeeding months. Therefore, we hope to be able to ensure that proper cover and support remain available to existing cases and that the accommodation and support arrangements created for one cohort of case remains available for the next.
There has been far less pressure from asylum seekers in Scotland and Northern Ireland. At the moment, we do not envisage a need to apply the interim arrangements in those areas. Instead, Amendment No. 312A makes provision for a phased move from support under social services legislation to the new support arrangements as appropriate.
It may be helpful if I deal with the Opposition's amendments as we see them. I put on one side Amendment No. 279, which is now decoupled. I simply say for your Lordships' assistance that that is an amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, relating to Northern Ireland and to which he referred a moment or two ago.
Those are the matters within this clutch of amendments, excluding Amendment No. 279 to which I shall speak later. I beg to move Amendment No. 125.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I draw attention to the fact that in this group of amendments there are quite a lot of powers to make regulations of one sort or another. Nevertheless, to some extent they replace powers which are already in Schedule 8 and which in some detail are of a similar character. Therefore, it is my opinion—subject to what other noble Lords may say—that there is no need to regard this as part of the undertaking. However, I believe that it would be wise for the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation to look at the new amendments, given the considerable changes that have been made to the powers. But I do not believe that that should be part of the undertaking. I believe that it would be tidier to insert these amendments into the Bill at this point rather than to hold them back for a later stage,
1206
particularly as they deal with interim provisions where obviously it is necessary for the Government to make even more urgent preparations than is required for other parts of the Bill.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that is extremely generous and not unexpected. I am most grateful to the noble Lord. Had the matter been raised, that was to be my response. If the committee has a view we shall pay attention to it. However, I agree with the noble Lord that this falls into a rather different category from those amendments that the noble Baroness and I discussed earlier—namely, Amendments Nos. 123 and 124. I cannot over-emphasise how much I appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Cope, has said and his general attitude.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, as possibly a more obstreperous Member of the House, perhaps I can ask whether the noble and learned Lord will agree to one slight compromise on what the noble Lord, Lord Cope, has suggested. I agree that it would be foolish for us simply to hold up large numbers of amendments in the critical situation that we face and to delay further the Government's ability to deal with that situation. We recognise, as the Attorney-General has said, that this is a critical area.
I have a question on three particular amendments: government Amendment No. 132, government Amendment No. 135 and government Amendment 136. In the first amendment regulations would allow local authorities to discontinue or suspend support during the interim period, which would mean that some asylum seekers would have no safety net of any kind. Amendment No. 135 allows the Government to prescribe areas in which local authorities may not place asylum seekers; and Amendment No. 136 lays down the maximum number.
We do not object to this group of amendments being put to the House on Report, but we would ask that the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation be asked for its view on those three amendments in time for any amendments to be tabled at Third Reading so that we can consider what the committee has to say. That would mean that we would not expect to hear anything further for at least 10 days because of the fortnight gap. However, I believe it would be helpful if, before we come to the final stage of the Bill in this House, we could have the views of the Select Committee on those three powers to regulate, which directly affect people's lives.
With that mild compromise, which I hope that the noble and learned Lord will feel could be conceded, and which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Cope will agree is sensible, we could accept the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Cope.
Before I continue, would the noble and learned Lord like to respond?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, certainly. The suggestion made by the noble Baroness is what I understood the noble Lord, Lord Cope, to say: that it was not within the letter of the agreement at which we

1207
had all arrived. I repeat my gratitude for that. Of course, speaking as a servant of the House, it seems to me that the more information we have about the views of the committee, the better. It seemed to me that the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said exactly that; that the matters would be moved tonight and if the Select Committee had a view we would be better informed to have our debate on Third Reading. That is how I understood the remarks of the noble Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Lockwood): My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord formally move Amendments Nos. 126 to 145A en bloc?
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, on a point of order, I gave way to the noble and learned Lord not because I had finished my remarks—I had not—but simply as a courtesy as I thought he would like to deal with that issue immediately. I apologise to the Deputy Speaker. I was merely yielding to the noble and learned Lord so that he could respond to my direct question. I am afraid that I have a few more questions. In good faith I said that I was giving way for the purposes of reply to that particular point and not, alas, that I was giving way on all the other points in this group of amendments.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Baroness had not finished speaking. She asked me for my help, which I gave and she is not in breach of any rule.
Lord Bach: My Lords, perhaps I can assist. If the Deputy Speaker were to put Amendment No. 126 now it may be that the noble Baroness Williams could speak to that amendment.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 126:
Page 132, leave out line 14 and insert ("eligible persons.
( )"Eligible persons" means—

(a) asylum-seekers, or

(b) their dependants,

who appear to be destitute or to be likely to become destitute within such period as may be prescribed.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thought it would be for the convenience of the House if, like the noble and learned Lord. I addressed the whole group of amendments. It would obviously take a great deal more time if we dealt with each separately. Therefore, it may be helpful if I respond to the amendments in the same spirit in which he has moved and spoken to the government amendments. I shall do so as quickly as I can
This whole group of amendments fundamentally concerns the role of local authorities in dealing with what is unquestionably a critical situation. The Government are seeking to take powers to deal with
1208
that critical situation which we have all seen exemplified over the past couple of months in Kent with the sudden arrival of a great many refugees, especially from Kosovo but also from other areas of the Balkans. It led Kent to have to deal without notice with a huge problem both financially and in terms of administration. I therefore understand and sympathise with the Government's desire to share the burden more equally among all local authorities in this country.
The issue I should like to raise with the Government goes directly to many of the Government's amendments. As I understand it, it is the view of the Local Government Association that the present voluntary arrangements are working reasonably well. It believes that that is a more effective approach to the whole difficulty of finding interim ways of dealing with asylum seekers than is the more heavy-handed approach of the Government. In its response to the Home Office consultation paper, it stated:
"The Association believes that the most effective approach to interim arrangements for asylum seeker support is to secure and to develop existing voluntary arrangements. The dispersal of asylum seekers to parts of the country outside London and the major ports is in practice already under way and there is a need to support and to build on the progress which has been made to date".
The final sentence, which is the most important, stated:
"The Association has serious concerns that the timetable for implementation of the [Home Office] proposals will obstruct such an approach".
The Local Government Association went on to make detailed comments to the effect that the timetable for the implementation of the interim arrangements is so constraining that the advantages of early action will be outweighed by the practical difficulties. Therefore we have a more substantive basis for concern than might be shown immediately in opinions being expressed in this House.
The Local Government Association, we know, is under great strain. If the Financial Times of Saturday is correct, it already believes that it is being obliged to dip into funds intended for uses other than to support asylum seekers. That, of course, is an argument for the Government's proposals and not against, because those proposals will enable a more equal sharing of the financial burden to be borne among many local authorities. But the Local Government Association responded to that in an eminently sensible way by suggesting that regional consortia should try to deal with the issue of how best to settle refugees and asylum seekers. In saying that a region should deal with a certain number of asylum seekers, the Government should consult closely with the regional authorities in that consortium as to how it might best be done, and they should all share the costs of doing that.
What troubles me—I shall not keep the House long—about the interim arrangements and this group of amendments is that they almost exclude local authorities from being able to bring to bear t heir own knowledge and experience. In my view, they have great knowledge and experience. The noble and learned Lord has already thanked them for their co-operation

1209
so far in what has been a very difficult endeavour. I hope that the Government will be able to say that they will consult. I hope that they will give careful consideration to the idea of building up regional consortia which will then take their share of the asylum seekers and refugees who come to this country and who will no doubt continue to come under the EU arrangements, although we hope that the burden sharing will then be yet wider. However, I am troubled by the degree of what one can only describe as "bureaucratic overlay" in the proposals made by the Government.
I have a certain amount of absolutely direct and first-hand experience of the particular situation which the Government face. When I was Minister of State at the Home Office, which is a long time ago now, one of the problems that we confronted, which is identical to the one faced by the Government, was the sudden arrival of 30,000 East-African Asian refugees—who incidentally arrived at extremely short notice; indeed, within a matter of weeks. It had been agreed that the promise made by Iain Macleod had to be abided by. The noble Lord, Lord Carr, who is not in his place at the moment but who knows that I am going to make these remarks, very courageously took the decision to take those asylum seekers and did so within a matter of a few weeks of the problem arising.
The problem arose because Mr Idi Amin of Uganda proposed to drive these people out or to kill them if they would not be driven out. That problem was dealt with—30,000 people in a matter of about a month or two—by the setting up of something called the Uganda Resettlement Board, with which I was closely involved. It took the decision to approach local authorities, which in a matter of weeks resettled 30,000 Ugandan refugees. It was done with eminent success and, if I may say so, without any government orders at all and provided the necessary emergency funds to enable those refugees to settle down. They went on to become among the most successful group of immigrants ever to reach this country since the great Jewish immigration of the turn of the century.
I strongly commend the experience of that Uganda resettlement system to the Government. It was cheaper; it was less bureaucratic; it required no primary legislation that I can recall; and it managed to deal with 30,000 in a very short time. I commend it to the Government. It is the reason why I have very grave doubts about the approach that the Home Office is taking. It seems to me to be over-centralised, over-didactic and over-prescriptive. With those words, I conclude my comments on this full set of amendments.
10 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Carr, has left the Chamber because, not for the first time, I am happy to say that it is to the ever-lasting credit of Mr Heath's government and the present noble Lord, Lord Carr, that they dealt with the problem which the noble Baroness identified so humanely. That was a discrete problem and it was dealt with quickly.
1210
We welcome the co-operation of the Local Government Association and the Association of London Government. As I said earlier, I particularly welcome the work of the LGA in building up consortia, to which the noble Baroness referred, both for the interim arrangements and for the longer term. But it is possible that we may need to act quickly. Not all local authorities are of equivalent excellence. That is why we are looking at the statutory powers. However, even if they are used, I am happy to reaffirm our view that the LGA will still be in the lead on dispersal, not least because it has the knowledge, the expertise and the facilities.
None of these provisions is in contra-distinction to what the noble Baroness said. If all works well with, for example, the consortia, that will be fine: the Home Office's burden would be lessened. Perhaps I may take just one short example from Amendment No. 136, which says:
"The regulations may make provision for the determination by the Secretary of State—

(a) for local authorities generally,

(b) for prescribed descriptions of local authority, or

(c) for particular local authorities".

It seems to me that that precisely meets the noble Baroness's point about consortia of local authorities in some circumstances being able to do well.
At present, and in the past few years, it has been very difficult for London local authorities and authorities in the south-east to deal with such problems. They feel—not without justification—that they have been overburdened by questions which are national and which ought to be dealt with on a national basis. These are regulations which give opportunities to the Secretary of State. I repeat: we would much prefer it if the local authorities were able to determine these matters themselves, but they do not have the power to set limits at the moment. They do not necessarily have the power to say, "We have done our reasonable bit. We have carried our fair share of the burden. Someone else must also assist". That is what these regulations are for. Without being, as the noble Baroness would say, unduly obstreperous, we are by and large in agreement.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 127 to 144:
Page 132, line 18, leave out ("destitute") and insert ("an eligible person").
Page 132, line 19, at end insert—
("( ) The regulations may make provisions for support to be provided, before the determination of that question, to a person making a claim for support under the regulations by the Secretary of State or such local authority as may be prescribed.").
Page 132, line 19, at end insert—
("( ) "The local authority concerned" has such meaning as may be prescribed.").
Page 132, line 20, leave out ("and (5)").
Page 132, line 24, leave out ("a destitute") and insert ("an eligible").
Page 132, line 27, at end insert ("; or

( ) must or may be suspended or discontinued.").

Page 132, line 30, at end insert—
(" . The regulations may include provision—

(a) as to the level of support that is to be provided;

(b) for support to he provided subject to conditions;

(c) requiring any such conditions to be set out in writing;

(d) requiring a copy of any such conditions to be given to such person as may be prescribed.").

Page 132, line 30, at end insert—
(". The regulations may make provision that, in providing support, a local authority—

(a) are to have regard to such matters as may be prescribed;

(b) are not to have regard to such matters as may be prescribed.").

Page 132, line 30, at end insert—
(". The regulations may include provision—

(a) prescribing particular areas, or descriptions of area, (which may include a locality within their own area) in which a local authority may not place asylum seekers while providing support for them;

(b) prescribing circumstances in which a particular area, or description of area, (which may include a locality within their own area) is to be one in which a local authority may not place asylum seekers while providing support for them;

(c) as to the circumstances (if any) in which any such provision is not to apply.").

Page 132, line 31, leave out paragraph 6 and insert—
("6. —(1) The regulations may make provision for the determination by the Secretary of State—

(a) for local authorities generally,

(b) for prescribed descriptions of local authority, or

(c) for particular local authorities,

of the maximum number of asylum-seekers, or the maximum number of eligible persons, for whom the authorities or authority are required under the regulations to provide support.
(2) The regulations may make provision for the referral by one local authority to another of a claim for support made under the regulations if the local authority to whom the claim is made consider that it is not manifestly unfounded but—

(a) they are providing support for a number of asylum-seekers equal to, or greater than, the prescribed maximum number of asylum-seekers applicable to them; or

(b) they are providing support for a number of eligible persons equal to, or greater than, the prescribed maximum number of eligible persons applicable to them.

(3) The regulations may provide that a referral may not be made—

(a) to a prescribed local authority;

(b) to local authorities of a prescribed description; or

(c) in prescribed circumstances.

(4) The regulations may make provision for the payment by a local authority of any reasonable travel or subsistence expenses incurred as a result of a referral made by them.
(5) The regulations may make provision for the transfer of a claim for support, or responsibility for providing support, under the regulations from one local authority to another on such terms as may be agreed between them.
(6) In exercising any power under the regulations to refer or transfer, a local authority must have regard to such guidance as may be issued by the Secretary of State with respect to the exercise of the power.").
Page 132, line 38, leave out ("a claim") and insert ("claims").
Page 132, line 39, leave out from second ("to") to end of line 40 and insert ("prescribed local authorities or local authorities of a prescribed description.").
Page 132, line 41, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
Page 133, line 6, leave out ("a person") and insert ("an asylum-seeker or a dependant of an asylum-seeker").
Page 133, line 7, after ("receiving,") insert ("any prescribed description of).
Page 133, line 7, leave out ("under any other prescribed enactment").
Page 133, line 10, leave out ("claim").
Page 133, line 11, leave out ("claim support under any other prescribed enactment") and insert ("any prescribed description of support, except to such extent (if any) as may be prescribed").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 145 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 145A:
Page 133, line 13, leave out paragraphs 12 and 13 and insert—
(". "The interim period" means the period—

(a) beginning on such day as may be prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph; and

(b) ending on such day as may be so prescribed.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 91 [Ways in which support may be provided]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 146:
Page 61, line 32, at end insert—

("( ) to enable dependants of the asylum seeker to attend bail proceedings in connection with his detention under any provision of the Immigration Acts; or

( ) to enable the asylum-seeker and his dependants to attend bail proceedings in connection with the detention of a dependant of his under any such provision.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 147 to 151 not moved.]
Clause 92 [Supplemental]:
[Amendments Nos. 152 to 154 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 155:
Page 62, line 18, leave out from ("order") to end of line 19 and insert ("repeal all or any of the following—

(a) subsection (1)(a);

(b) subsection (1)(b);

(c) subsection (2)(a).").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 156 not moved.]
Clause 93 [Secretary of State's scheme]:
The Earl of Sandwich The Earl of Sandwich moved Amendment No. 1.57:
Page 63, line 14, at end insert—
("( ) For the purposes of subsection (3) above, the work of charities, churches, faith groups or religious organisations shall not be regarded as support and assets which arc or might reasonably be expected to be available to the person concerned or his dependants.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I wish to return to Amendment No. 157. I am sorry to delay your Lordships longer because I know that we want to get

1213
through much other business. However, it was the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who said that there is much feeling on this issue in the House. I suspect that there is much feeling among Members who are not in the Chamber at present. We have had a full debate and I cannot prolong it except to say to the noble and learned Lord that I understand his point about the Home Office funded organisations but I think that we are talking from opposite ends of the spectrum. I know that he is a reasonable man. I believe that he felt this was a reasonable amendment, as I still believe. It is on that basis that I wish to test the opinion of the House this evening. I beg to move.
10.7 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 157) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 46; Not-Contents, 83.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Hylton, L.

Astor, V.

Iveagh, E.

Attlee, E.

Jopling, L.

Avebury, L.

Kintore, E.

Bath and Wells, Bp.

Lichfield, Bp.

Brentford, V.

Lyell, L.

Bridgeman, V. [Teller]

McNair, L.

Carlisle, E.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Chesham, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Montrose, D.

Courtown, E.

Northbourne, L.

Craigavon, V.

Northesk, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Norton, L.

Dholakia, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Eccles, V.

Patel, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rowallan, L.

Fookes, B.

Russell, E.

Glanusk, L.

Sandwich, E. [Teller]

Glenarthur, L.

Southwark, Bp.

Glentoran, L.

Swinfen, L.

Gray, L.

Tebbit, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Ahmed, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Alli, L.

Desai, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Dixon, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Bach, L.

Dubs, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Elder, L.

Berkeley, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Blackstone, B.

Evans of Watford, L.

Bragg, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Brett, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Filkin, L.

Brookman, L.

Gale, B.

Burlison, L.

Gilbert, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Chandos, V.

Goldsmith, L.

Christopher, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Goudie, B.

Crawley, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

David, B.

Grenfell, L.

1214

Hacking, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Monkswell, L.

Hayman, B.

Nicol, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hoyle, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord

Simon, V.

Privy Seal)

Strabolgi, L.

Judd, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Thornton, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Warner, L.

Lipsey, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Lockwood, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Whitty, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Wilkins, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

[Teller]

Winston, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
10.17 p.m.
[Amendment No. 158 not moved.]
Clause 95 [Provision of support by local authorities]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 159:
Page 64, line 8, leave out ("supported persons") and insert ("asylum-seekers").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 160 to 167, 168, 169, 170, 176 to 180. This group is concerned with the role of local authorities. As we discussed earlier, particularly on the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, some local authorities have considerable amounts of spare housing stock available. We very much hope that they will make some of that available for use by the directorate in accommodating asylum seekers. I am happy to reaffirm that we are in active discussion with local authorities on this point, and we are hopeful of reaching acceptable arrangements with them.
Amendments Nos. 159 and 160 provide the necessary basis for local authorities to enter into contractual arrangements with the Secretary of State. It is possible that some local authorities may be reluctant to come forward with spare and unused housing stock. Clause 97 therefore provides a reserve power for the Secretary of State to issue a direction. The government amendments to Clause 97 are all designed to give proper safeguards to local authorities which might be the object of such a direction. They reflect discussions we have had with local authorities, local authority associations and of course colleagues in other government departments.
Amendment No. 161, together with Amendments Nos. 167 and 170 provide that a direction under Clause 97 must be made by reference to specific criteria. Before setting out these criteria in the order—I hope that noble Lords will approve of this—the

1215
Secretary of State must consult the bodies mentioned in subsections (9) and (10). This will ensure that the principles underlying the act of issuing a direction are clearly understood. In the case of a direction issued to a Scottish local authority, the confirmation of Scottish Ministers, who will have the best appreciation of local circumstances, that the designation criteria are met is required.
Amendments Nos. 162 and 165 make provision for a direction to require minor works to be done and to allocate responsibility for dealing with costs. The general assumption is that the costs would fall to the Secretary of State. There may be circumstances where that would not occur.
Amendment No. 163 is a technical amendment. Amendment No. 166 provides for a dispute resolution procedure. It provides a resolution by an independent third party. Amendment No. 164 provides that regulations may be made establishing the condition in which a property is to be returned to the local authority at the end of the period of a direction. Amendments Nos. 177 and 178 ensure that the Secretary of State has the power to make payments to local authorities and local authority associations for Part VI services. Amendment No. 178 places the Secretary of State under an explicit duty to make payments for accommodation provided to him as a result of the direction.
I hope that it will never be necessary to use the powers in Clause 97 to direct a local authority. Voluntary arrangements are infinitely preferable. However, we need a back-stop. These general amendments meet the purposes I have described. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, Amendment No. 168 is grouped with the amendments to which the noble and learned Lord has just spoken. Subsection (7) of the clause states:
"The Secretary of State must make regulations with respect to the general management of any housing accommodation for which a direction under subsection (3) is, for the time being, in force".
My amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult local authorities about subsection (7) in terms of making regulations. Earlier in Clause 97 there are powers for the Secretary of State to consult. We wonder why there is no such power in subsection (7). There may be an obvious explanation. It seems to us that there should be a mechanism whereby the Secretary of State can do this. I shall be interested in the noble and learned Lord's answer.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment No. 169. We had a useful discussion relating to a similar matter on the provision of services for people who are tortured. My amendment seeks to ensure that information collected by the Legal Aid Board on the number of solicitors' offices and other organisations which have bid for a legal aid contract under the immigration and asylum category can be taken into account in designating the areas in which asylum seekers will be dispersed.
1216
I say that because past experience has always indicated that specialist advice on complex issues of immigration and asylum is available in fairly limited areas. If asylum seekers are to be put in areas where such advice is not available, they will be at a disadvantage. I know that we have spoken about this matter on similar lines. I hope that the Government will take the amendment into account.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. In subsection (9) there is an obligation to consult before the designation of reception zones. But, more fundamentally, subsections (11) and (12) require consultation. I think that the noble Viscount and I are of the same view. We did not think that it was necessary to set out the requirement more fully. We believe that it is fully dealt with by the present scheme of the Bill.
Not for the first time, the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and I are in general agreement about what we want. His point is very well taken. We are discussing with the Legal Aid Board what steps might be taken to ensure that the new contracting arrangements take account of the need for asylum seekers to have access to practitioners skilled in immigration law. He and I are absolutely at one. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, said the same earlier. We thought that the best thing for us to do was to continue our consultations with the Legal Aid Board. I repeat: there are settled communities with access to appropriate advice. I am grateful to both noble Lords for raising these questions. I hope that have been able to satisfy them respectively on Amendments Nos. 168 and 169.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I understand the points about subsections (10) and (11). My point was that, when the Secretary of State makes regulations in respect of the general management of the housing accommodation, as opposed to merely the reception zones, he should consult. I take it from the Minister's reply that that would be part of the consultation process. If that is correct, I am happy to accept his explanation.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, before we conclude this group of amendments perhaps I may ask a couple of questions. One concerns Amendments Nos. 162 and 163. Would the "minor work'' referred to include, for example, such matters as taking the boards off a house that had been closed down? Would it also include the minor work necessary to make habitable a house that might have been empty for some time?
On a related point, the provision in Amendments Nos. 166 and 167 for disputes to be dealt with by a dispute resolution procedure strikes us as rather odd, as one of the parties to that dispute procedure would presumably be the Home Office. It seems to us, on the basis of most arbitration and conciliation procedures, that the appropriate body to set up a dispute procedure would not be one of those specifically involved in the disputes. We wonder, therefore,

1217
whether the Government have given any thought to the idea of passing such a dispute procedure under the eyes of a body with experience of such procedures other than the Government; otherwise, there will be an element of interest in the outcome because one has an interest in one side of the dispute procedure. I hope that the noble and learned Lord follows my no doubt convoluted question.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is not convoluted in the slightest. The Secretary of State is entitled to make regulations for the dispute resolution machinery. It would have to be fair and perfectly in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The whole point of this is to avoid—I am about to be disbarred! —legalistic and expensive proceedings.
If there are to be disputes, one wants a simple dispute resolution procedure. Such a procedure is well known. It would involve, for instance, the nomination of an independent mediator, arbitrator or conciliator, who could, for instance, be from a panel maintained by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors. There is nothing unusual about this. We are not trying to load the dice. We are simply saying, "If we cannot resolve disputes, here is a simple, easy, non-legalistic and inexpensive way of doing it".
"Minor work" could certainly mean putting property back into good repair, and might well include unboarding.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I am conscious that your Lordships do not wish the occupant of the Woolsack, or indeed the Chair, to venture into matters of order. But if I may be of some help to the House, I would indicate that it is customary, and in accordance with the procedure of this House on Report, for no interventions to take place—unless it is an intervention in the middle of the replying Minister's speech—after the Minister has sat down. It would be in accordance with the procedure of the House if any interventions by any noble Lords took place before the Minister's reply. I hope that that is not in any way infringing your Lordships' wish about the conduct of order in this House. I hope only that my intervention will be of some help.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 160:
Page 64, line 19, at end insert—
("( ) A local authority may incur reasonable expenditure in connection with the preparation of proposals for entering into arrangements under section 90.
( ) The powers conferred on a local authority by this section include power to—

(a) provide services outside their area,

(b) provide services jointly with one or more bodies who are not local authorities;

(c) form a company for the purpose of providing services;

(d) tender for contracts (whether alone or with any other person).").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 97 [Reception zones]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 161 to 167:
Page 65, line 23, at end insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State's power to give a direction under subsection (3) in respect of a particular reception zone must be exercised by reference to criteria specified for the purposes of this subsection in the order designating that zone.
( ) The Secretary of State may not give a direction under subsection (3) in respect of a local authority in Scotland unless the Scottish Ministers have confirmed to him that the criteria specified in the designation order concerned are in their opinion met in relation to that authority.").
Page 65, line 30, at end insert
("( ) If housing accommodation for which a direction under this section is, for the time being, in force—

(a) is not appropriate for the accommodation of persons supported under this Part, but

(b) is capable of being made so with minor work,

the direction may require the body to whom it is given to secure that that work is done without delay.").
Page 65, line 35, leave out ("for the calculation of") and insert ("as to the method to be used in determining").
Page 65, line 42, at end insert—
("( ) with respect to the condition in which the accommodation is to be returned when the direction ceases to have effect.").
Page 65, line 42, at end insert—
("(8A) Regulations under subsection (7) may, in particular, include provision—

(a) for the cost, or part of the cost, of minor work required by a direction under this section to be met by the Secretary of State in prescribed circumstances;

(b) as to the maximum amount of expenditure which a body may be required to incur as a result of a direction under this section.").

Page 65, line 42, at end insert—
("(8B) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision ("the dispute resolution procedure") for resolving disputes arising in connection with the operation of any regulations made under subsection (7).
(8C) Regulations under subsection (8B) must include provision—

(a) requiring a dispute to be resolved in accordance with the dispute resolution procedure;

(b) requiring the parties to a dispute to comply with obligations imposed on them by the procedure; and

(c) for the decision of the person resolving a dispute in accordance with the procedure to be final and binding on the parties.").

Page 65, line 43, after ("Britain") insert—

("(b) determining the criteria to be included in the order designating the zone, or

(c) making regulations under subsection (8B),").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 168 and 169 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 170:
Page 66, line 1, after ("zone") insert (", or

(b) determining the criteria to be included in the order designating Northern Ireland,").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
10.30 p.m.
Clause 99 [Appeals]:
Lord Alton of Liverpool Lord Alton of Liverpool moved Amendment No. 171:
Page 66, line 23, at end insert—
("( ) If the Secretary of State provides or offers to provide support which the applicant contends is not adequate for his needs and the needs of his dependants (if any), the applicant may appeal to an adjudicator.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Members of your Lordships' House will recall that in Committee we had a debate about exactly the same amendment. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to rehearse the arguments again at length this evening, but other noble Lords and I indicated then that we would return to the question on Report.
The amendment provides for a right of appeal against the offer of inadequate or unsuitable support. Rather than using the judges dealing with the Crown Office, and those hearing judicial reviews, the amendment instead seeks to utilise the asylum support adjudicators. It seems to me on the face of it a more sensible and efficient configuration of duties.
Without the amendment, there are likely to be many more judicial reviews, something the Government say they hope that their legislation will prevent in the future. However, I suspect that there will be more judicial reviews on issues such as levels of support.
Where people are housed in unsuitable or unsafe accommodation or where there are special needs—for example, those relating to disability, an issue we have discussed at some length tonight—or where they have not been adequately provided for, it will be unsafe for them to continue being supported at the inadequate level
I recognise that in Amendment No. 175 which is grouped with this, the Government have tried to come some way in our direction. It would be churlish not to recognise that and not to express my gratitude to the noble and learned Lord. I know that he was receptive to the arguments when we discussed them in Committee.
The amendment provides for the possibility of extending the adjudicator's jurisdiction, specifically only on the issue of location. I do not believe location is the only issue at stake here. The Government have taken powers to extend the jurisdiction of the adjudicator, presumably in response to the debate in your Lordships' House, and to prevent a deluge of judicial reviews on the subject. They have not extended it outright. It seems to me that it would be sensible for them to take powers at the least to enable them to extend the provision further in the future, if they thought it appropriate. The judicial reviews might turn out to be less about location and far more about levels of support.
My amendment, therefore, provides for the appeal process, if extended, to he modified in the future on the basis of experience. Rights in connection with such reviews need to cover matters such as the equality of the parties, rights to a hearing and other fundamental issues.
When we considered the detailed schedules to the Bill devoted to the asylum support adjudication process, we could see how flawed the process was and the need to ensure that there are proper systems of appeal for those who might feel that they have been hardly done by. The matter should at the least be considered by the Delegated Powers Select Committee. I hope that when the noble and learned Lord comes to reply to the debate he will consider that point. I beg to move.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, this is an excellent amendment. I support what was clearly stated by my noble friend. We all know that the new system will be based on a whole array of central government regulations, most of which are not yet even in draft. We cannot, in the nature of things, be certain that the new system will be adequate to meet all needs.
It is also reasonably certain that there will be the widest possible variety of different circumstances applying to different single individuals and different families dispersed throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. On those grounds, I am pleased to support the amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Lichfield: My Lords, I believe that this is an important amendment, particularly in relation to the needs of families with children, for two reasons. First, it is possible that the needs of particular dependent children may not be sufficiently comprehended for them to be adequately met in the initial provision of support for such children. Surely, it is important that there should be grounds for appeal to an adjudicator in such circumstances in order to prevent any harm coming to the child.
Secondly, we all know that the needs of children change over time, sometimes quite dramatically. The Government's objectives to reduce the time taken for asylum claims and appeals to be determined are welcome, but they may not be met as early as intended. Even if they are, the needs of a child can change significantly in the course of six months. I strongly support the amendment and hope that the Government will give it favourable consideration.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I should like to relate Amendment No. 171 to Amendment No. 175. I strongly support the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Hylton, on Amendment No. 171. However, we also recognise, as did the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that Amendment No. 175 goes some way to meet the point, and for that we are grateful. Having been up to now rather sceptical about regulations, this is perhaps one of the few areas of the Bill in which I believe it would be very helpful if regulations could be made as quickly as possible in order that the adjudicator could deal with the issues relevant to Amendment No. 175. That would go some way to meeting the concerns of noble Lords in relation to Amendment No. 171. With those few words, I give my support to the amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, HIV and AIDS organisations are greatly concerned that people

1221
may be moved to parts of the country where there is inadequate support. Perhaps the Minister has received notification of that concern. I should be grateful to receive some assurance from the noble and learned Lord. Further, in the light of the increase in cases of tuberculosis, particularly among refugees, it is important that these people are given adequate and correct treatment.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I believe that the concerns expressed go to the fairness of the procedure and its appropriate flexibility. I do not believe Amendment No. 171 to be the correct way forward because it goes to those cases where people have applied for support, have been assessed as entitled to it and have been offered specific support, and the only quarrel is about the amount being offered. To deal with that situation we are establishing a full and formal review process within the asylum support directorate. The amendment proposes that there should be a right of appeal on the amount of support. I am bound to say that I believe adjudicators' time would be better spent directing attention to those who have been refused support and will get nothing and whose appeal is on the basis that they are in serious danger of being left utterly destitute. That kind of error could be extremely serious. However, I take the points that have been raised. I assure noble Lords that the review procedure will be rigorous.
I turn the point raised by the right reverend Prelate. I respectfully agree with him that circumstances can change, even within a period of six months. There will be scope for application to be made to vary the support that is offered where there is evidence that the support is inadequate, which I hope chimes in with his thoughts. We intend to keep the review procedure itself under review, and if there are any shortcomings they can be corrected as quickly as possible. I believe that that is why the interests of the asylum seeker are better served by what I have outlined than the formalistic remedy offered in Amendment No. 171.
I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, about geographic location. In Amendment No. 175 we are empowered to provide by regulations to be laid before Parliament for appeals to be heard against decisions on location. We cannot be certain of the adjudicators' workload and do not propose to exercise the power immediately, but we do not want to leave the Bill so inflexible that the remedy to which the noble Baroness spoke cannot be achieved. I hope that I have been able to satisfy her.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I ask the Minister to give way in order to ask a question. One of the points made was that there is a likelihood of increased reliance on the process of appeal, which could make it more difficult for the Government as well as asylum seekers. Within the considerations of the review to which the Minister referred, will he bear that point in mind too?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, what my noble friend says is very much to the point. I am grateful
1222
because he has jogged my mind. With his experience, he knows the nature of judicial review. Judicial review goes essentially to procedure not merit, as he implies. If we find that the mechanism is not working properly and that judicial review becomes even more overburdened, his point is well made and I am happy to take it on board.
Amendments Nos. 172, 173 and 174 are drafting amendments. Amendments Nos. 292 and 313 are technical amendments to update the disqualification reference—as I am sure noble Lords will have recognized—in the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 and the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975. I commend them.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, during the course of his remarks in reply to the debate, the Minister assured the House that the process will be kept under review. As the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, remarked, there is a danger that we shall see an increase in the number of challenges, resort to judicial review and the appeal processes. Therefore the whole process may come under some strain.
If that were to occur, we now have the Minister's assurance that the position can be re-examined in the future. Amendment No. 175 deals with location, and I am grateful for that. With reference to the old adage that half a loaf is better than none, and considering the lateness of the hour, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 172 to 175:
Page 66, line 26, at end insert ("; or

(c) dismiss the appeal.").

Page 66, line 29, leave out ("determined against the appellant") and insert ("dismissed").
Page 66, line 30, leave out ("from him") and insert ("by the appellant").
Page 66, line 32, at end insert—
("(6A) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for decisions as to where support provided under section 90 is to be provided to be appealable to an adjudicator under this Part.
(6B) Regulations under subsection (6A) may provide for any provision of this section to have effect, in relation to an appeal brought by virtue of the regulations, subject to such modifications as may be prescribed.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 106 [Payments to local authorities]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 176 to 180:
Page 69, line 13, after ("authority") insert ("or Northern Ireland authority").
Page 69, line 16, at end insert—
(1A) The Secretary of State may from time to time pay to any—

(a) local authority,

(b) local authority association, or

1223

(c) Northern Ireland authority,

such sums as he considers appropriate in respect of services provided by the authority or association in connection with the discharge of functions under this Part.").
Page 69, line 22, at end insert—
("(3A) The Secretary of State must pay to a directed body sums determined to be payable in relation to accommodation made available by that body under section 97(3)(a).
(3B) The Secretary of State may pay to a directed body sums determined to be payable in relation to accommodation made available by that body under section 97(3)(b).
(3C) In subsections (3A) and (3B)—

"determined" means determined in accordance with regulations made by virtue of subsection (8)(a) of section 97, and

"directed body" means a body to which a direction under subsection (3) of section 97 is given.").

Page 69, line 23, after ("(1)") insert (", (1A)").
Page 69, line 24, at end insert—
("( ) "Northern Ireland authority" means—

(a) the Executive; or

(b) a Health and Social Services Board established under Article 16 of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 110 [Overpayments]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 181:
Page 71, line 3, at end insert ("or 94").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 111 [Exclusion from benefits]:
10.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 182:
Page 71, line 27, leave out ("subject to immigration control") and insert ("to whom this section applies").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the ninth group is a quite substantial group in terms of number. Perhaps I should go through a number of the amendments to indicate which of them should not be moved because of the agreement to which we have come.
If I have the numbers correctly, I shall not move Amendments Nos. 187, 188, 191, 194, 195, 196, 198, 199, 200, 202, 203, 205, 207 and 208. The reason that I have sought to honour the bargain (as it were) is that they all contain references to government Amendment No. 124, which was not moved. I refer to the short dialogue the noble Baroness and I had, which I think met with general agreement. We need to retable for Third Reading.
I believe that I gave the wrong reference by saying that I would not move Amendment No. 199. Amendment No. 199 is one of those curious little beasts that is capable of being moved in this group. Therefore, group nine of the amendments has become a little shorter. I daresay that I shall have to correct myself as I go along. Amendments Nos. 182 and 185 are essentially drafting amendments. The phrase,
"person subject to immigration control".
1224
is defined in subsection (4) of Clause 111, applied in subsection (3) and not needed in subsections (1) and (2). It should be replaced by the revised phrase,
"A person to whom this section applies".
It will be an occasion of lasting distress that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, is not here. If he had a hat, he would have thrown it into the air on realising that the Government were at last coming round to the correct way of thinking as regards drafting.
I shall be moving Amendment No. 186, which is a tidying up amendment. Family credits are giving way to working families' tax credit, disability working allowances and the disabled person's tax credit. Amendment No. 186 therefore brings in the Treasury as the relevant department.
Amendments Nos. 187 and 188 are in purdah. Amendments Nos. 190 to 194 are necessary to ensure that Clause 113 has the effect which we intend it should have, applying only to those who should have no entitlement to the benefit of these arrangement. Amendments Nos. 190 and 193 are purely technical clarifying phraseology. Amendment No. 192 refines the exclusion we have made so that it affects only those whose recourse to these provisions comes about solely on account of destitution. I am omitting Amendment No. 194.
The next series of amendments includes Amendment No. 197. I am omitting Amendments Nos. 198, 200, 202 and 203, which are drafting improvements. When one looks at them they tend to speak for themselves. I believe that I have already explained the Government's general thinking to your Lordships as regards the amendments to Clause 113. The group of amendments takes account of amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Cope of Berkeley, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, at Committee stage as regards arrangements made under the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984. Therefore, if a person is destitute, but there is an additional factor like mental illness or mental handicap, the person will still be eligible for the full range of services which a local authority is authorised to provide under Sections 7 and 8 of that Act.
Amendment No. 204 achieves in the Northern Ireland context what earlier amendments did for England, Wales and Scotland. I do not deal with Amendment No. 205 for the reasons I have given. Amendment No. 206 is a minor change extending the application of Clause 90(4).
I omit Amendments Nos. 207 and 208 for the reasons given. Amendments Nos. 209 to 217 have been drafted to ensure that the relevant provisions associated with the welfare of children will apply properly in Northern Ireland. The amendments themselves are relatively technical. Amendment No. 211 is consequential. Amendment No. 212 encompasses Northern Ireland authorities within the relevant authority. Amendment No. 213 paves the way for Amendments Nos. 214 to 217. It sets out whether the Secretary of State or the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland makes the relevant regulations.
Amendments Nos. 294 and 296 to 300 inclusive make minor technical drafting changes. Amendment No. 305A extends the provision of free school meals under the Education Act 1996 to the children of asylum seekers who are being supported under Part VI of the Bill. I hope that that meets with the approval of the right reverend Prelate who introduced the very important observation that we want the children of asylum seekers to be in mainstream education and therefore will need to benefit in appropriate cases by what I have just said. Amendment No. 310 has been drafted to cope with the possibility that certain clauses may be brought into force earlier than others although there may be definitions in the clauses which technically refer to clauses not yet in force. The amendment deems that Clause 111 shall be for the purposes of Clauses 112 and 116, where those definitions are cross-referred, treated as though it were in force even if it has not formally been commenced.
Within the group we find Amendment No. 189, which has given us a deal of cause for thought. Having listened to all the arguments, we have inserted the limitations in Amendments Nos. 191 and 194. I indicated that because I remind your Lordships and myself that I said I would not move those amendments and I believe that your Lordships are entitled to that explanation.
Amendment No. 200A would have the effect of restoring the access to support under the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984. Your Lordships will have seen Amendments Nos. 198 to 200 which restrict the exclusions to those cases where the sole basis for recourse to relief is on the grounds of destitution. Where there are other genuine reasons for need, the exclusions will not apply and access to these provisions will continue to apply.
Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 212A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. I am obliged to the noble Lord, and not for the first time, for raising the matter. We have looked at it and are satisfied that there may well be a role for the inspectorate to play in monitoring the operation of our provisions relating to support for children under the Bill. We intend to pursue this, probably by way of establishing an informal bilateral arrangement. This would be very much along the lines of that which exists between the inspectorate and the Prison Service Agency, for instance, with regard to mother and baby units in women's prisons. I am told—and my recent experience as Prisons Minister underlined it—that the arrangement is seen as being very successful in practical application. We therefore hope to be able to achieve a similar mutually supportive exercise.
I repeat that I am genuinely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for raising the issue. It enabled us to focus on it and I hope that what I have said will reassure him that his amendment will not be needed, but it had value. I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I have taken note of what the Minister said on this group of
1226
amendments. I also recognise that what he said about a number of amendments going back to the Select Committee on delegated legislation is most welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and to us on these Benches. Therefore, perhaps I may briefly address the one part of the gutted group that is of great importance.
I hope that I understood the noble and learned Lord correctly. I shall be addressing Amendment No. 189. I want to do so briefly and no doubt one of the right reverend Prelates will speak for the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. Perhaps I may underline the reasons why, without question, we would have divided the House on this matter had we not heard what the noble and learned Lord had to say about Amendment No. 191. I appreciate that we are all in difficulty because that is now "going off" to be further considered. I can only hope that when it comes back from further consideration the Government will bear in mind what I am saying as well as the recommendations of the Select Committee.
I have considerable respect for the ability and farsightedness of this Government. It was therefore with some surprise that I read the original Clause 113, which Amendment No. 189 seeks to alter, because I thought that it was, to put it bluntly, both mean and foolish. It is difficult to combine those two aspects.
I thought it was mean because it seemed astonishing to exclude from two of the crucial provisions of the National Health Service the provision for the care of elderly people and, secondly, the provision for preventive healthcare and assistance with mental health, when one might say directly that in these three areas there is every reason to show compassion and understanding for the situation of our fellow human beings. Furthermore, there is every reason to believe that asylum seekers more than most would be in need of such care because of the often terrible situations they have passed through. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford and Members on our Benches were united in the feeling that this provision could not stand part of the Bill.
I shall mention one other point briefly raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. In particular, to exclude any group of people from preventive health and public health provisions is quite straightforwardly completely daft, not least because, quite apart from other diseases, refugees often suffer seriously from TB.
One characteristic of TB, especially of the new forms of TB which are highly resistant to conventional drugs, is that, unless people are persuaded to take the drugs they are offered, the TB comes back in a more virulent form. If it then escapes, it could in fact infect a great many British citizens, who would then find that the antibiotics normally used, such as BCG and so on, were no longer effective.
Therefore, it simply makes no sense at all to exclude refugees and asylum seekers from preventive health measures and from measures concerned with epidemic diseases. I cannot believe, with great respect, that Home Office civil servants really consulted with the Department of Health on that matter, or they would never have included this provision.

1227
It is therefore comforting to know that the Government have, I hope, gone some way in Amendment No. 191 to mitigating it.
I confess that I found the amendment very difficult to understand, despite the fact that I showed it to some of my colleagues with legal experience. They also found it very difficult to understand, but I trust the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General when he tells me that Amendment No. 191 means that normal asylum seekers would no longer be excluded from those services. However, we still feel great concern that, as we understand it, those who are destitute will be excluded from such services.
I may have misunderstood. I do not wish to press unreasonably, but surely the destitute are the most likely to suffer from such conditions as TB, which is common among destitute people. If the noble and learned Lord has seen, for example, any of the studies on destitution and homelessness in New York, he will know that one of the things which has recurred most seriously in the past few years has been this precise form of drug-resistant TB, which is now raging among the poor and destitute of New York, and which one would certainly not want to see in this country.
Without wishing to waste the time of the House, we are grateful for what we understand may be in Amendment No. 191 and hope that Ministers can assure us that the fact that it has now gone off for scrutiny will not preclude the concession from being made. If Ministers say so, we trust and believe them, but we would finally plead with them to look again at the situation of the destitute, particularly with regard to preventive health, because, I repeat—although I do not wish to keep saying it over and over again—that in the particular case of TB, there must be a regime which is completed. If that regime is not completed, the bug comes back in a far more dangerous and sometimes lethal form. I do not have medical knowledge but I am sure that there are other Members of the House who will bear out that what I am saying is absolutely true and that Ministers must take it extremely seriously.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord said that this is a substantial group of amendments. It certainly is; there are over 50 amendments in one group. To begin, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the amendments regarding Scotland which he tabled, which take account of the commitments made in Committee. We are extremely grateful on this side of the House for that.
Among the myriad amendments to which he spoke initially, the noble and learned Lord referred to my Amendment No. 200A, but did not at that stage offer any arguments about it. Perhaps it would be helpful if I said something about the amendment now.
As I understand from reading the Bill, as currently drafted it removes the obligation on local authorities to provide residential accommodation and aftercare services for those subject to immigration control who have been suffering from a mental disorder. The effect of such a proposal has consequences more far-reaching than those immediately apparent for the
1228
individual concerned. To leave an immigrant suffering from a mental disorder without access to residential accommodation and aftercare services will have profound public policy implications. The adoption of such a policy must raise concerns for the safety of the community as a whole.
I am advised by my colleagues in Scotland that mental health has been devolved to the Scottish Parliament and is currently being reviewed by the Scottish executive. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that. I wonder how those changes sit with the fact that it is devolved; that there is a review; and how the changes implied by the Bill sit within that process.
11 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, my noble and learned friend has been extremely helpful, as, usual, in responding to a number of these matters. However, in general terms, I wish to advert to some of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams.
Notwithstanding the assertions made by my noble and learned friend, I believe that anomalies may well persist. I am not sure about that but I have a feeling that they will. Consequently, I look to my noble and learned friend at least to assert this evening that he will look very carefully at those points. It would not be helpful to have those anomalies, which may be practical in their implications, on the face of the Bill as it emerges. Notwithstanding the fact that my noble and learned friend will have ameliorated the position by virtue of the amendments which he proposes to bring forward, it would be unhelpful from a practical point of view if those serious matters were still to apply. Therefore, I look to my noble and learned friend to give an assurance to the House this evening that, in the light of what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said, he will examine those matters extremely carefully.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his extreme: y helpful remarks in relation to Amendment No. 212A on Clause 218. In the circumstances, I do not wish to press that amendment.
I discussed with the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, the possibility of taking Amendment No. 238 with Amendment No. 212A in order to deal together with the inspection amendments. Is it possible to do that?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that is most generous and I am sure that the House would find that convenient.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I add one line of thanks to the Minister for his reply on Amendment No. 212A.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, in that case, I shall deal now with Amendment No. 238, which is to Clause 136. Neither in that clause nor in Part VIII is there any mention of children. If the noble and learned Lord were to give an assurance that children would not under any

1229
circumstances be detained in detention centres, I need not bother the House further with my peroration on the subject. Is that the case or will children be involved?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I must not simply have a private conversation with the noble Lord. In deference to the House, I shall deal briefly with Amendment No. 238. It is to insert the words,
"where a child is detained in a detention centre under Part VIII of this Act, the Secretary of State shall arrange for the detention centre to be inspected by the Social Services Inspectorate as often as he deems to be necessary and in any case not less than once in each period of 24 months".
I understand the concerns in that regard. Detention centre rules to be made under Clause 149 will set out detailed provisions about accommodation of and facilities to be provided for detained families and children. Separate living accommodation will be required. Staff coming into contact with children will need to have received basic childcare training. All staff must be checked against the paedophile registers. One of the key functions of visiting committees, which must be appointed by the Secretary of State for every detention centre in Clause 148, will be to monitor and report on the proper implementation of the rules.
Clause 148 also makes provision for the inspection of all detention centres by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons. His office will have a statutory duty to report on the treatment of all detainees, including families, together with the conditions of detention at detention centres. It is open to him to call on expert help from outside his department whenever he feels it necessary. From my own experience of working closely with Sir David over the past year, I know that he has never been reluctant to bring in outside expert assistance. I am sure that the chief inspector will ask for the assistance of the social services directorate when inspecting a centre that holds families with children when he deems it necessary to do so.
I believe that these measures will provide for the independent scrutiny of detention centres and a proper level of statutory regulation where children or families are detained. At the moment there is only one discrete facility for the detention of families. It was designed and developed in consultation with a local child protection officer. I believe that this shows our earnest intention and good will. I can undertake that the Secretary of State will continue to have regard to the views of the local authority child protection officers in respect of any future provision of family accommodation. I have deliberately answered as fully as I can to meet the concerns raised by the noble Lord.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, at this stage is the noble and learned Lord to answer the point on Amendment No. 200A or is the noble and learned Lord finally sitting down?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the concept of "finally sitting down" is not well known to me in the context of this Bill! The noble Lord, Lord
1230
Northbourne, raised a particular point. It deserved an answer that was full and attended to his question. Like the Windmill Theatre, I never close, and I shall now deal with the noble Viscount's question.
The noble Viscount is quite right that mental health is a devolved matter. However—the most appalling word in the English language—immigration, including asylum seeker support, is a reserved matter. That covers the point about Scotland.
I turn to the serious point raised by the noble Baroness and others. I take all points on board and I always pay close attention to what my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis says because he rarely intervenes, but when he does he is brief and to the point. Of course, we shall bear in mind the points raised by the noble Baroness and my noble friend. Those who are destitute are excluded only in respect of destitution needs. I take the point raised by the noble Baroness entirely. Those destitution needs can be met by Part VI of the Bill, but they are not excluded in respect of—I take her examples—mental health needs or tuberculosis needs or general health needs. I hope that I have been able to give her and my noble friend the undertaking and the reassurance which they sought.
The Lord Bishop of Lichfield: My Lords, in the absence of the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Oxford, I warmly associate myself with all that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, has said apropos Amendment No. 189.
I have two questions concerning Amendment No. 212A. I ask the noble and learned Lord for clarification regarding the role of the social services inspectorate in developing and implementing the comprehensive inspection programme in accordance with the Minister's commitments. I also seek clarification regarding proposed local authority arrangements to monitor support arrangements for families with children in cluster areas to ensure that the welfare of children is maintained. As families will now be systematically dispersed to cluster areas around the country, it is essential that data is collected and analysed to ensure that the needs of the children are met and that their welfare is sustained as the new practice is implemented. Therefore, I ask for clarification on both those areas—inspection and monitoring—through the interim support arrangements from November 1999 to April 2000 and thereafter when the new support arrangements set out under Part VI come into force.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord referred to my amendment and said, entirely correctly, that immigration is not a matter that is devolved. I understand that. However, will someone who is subject to immigration control and who suffers from a mental disorder have access to residential accommodation or aftercare services, or will he fall through the gap? Where does the responsibility lie for his care?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the best course for me to follow in the area of devolved matters is to

1231
write to the noble Viscount, if he finds that acceptable. The reason is that, although when we were all first joined together in considering this Bill I was a Home Office Minister, I now have different work to do which involves giving advice on devolution matters. They are not always straightforward and it is not appropriate for me to give an off-the-cuff answer in respect of a Bill which is a Home Office Bill when I might have to advise the Government generally on a devolution matter. I shall therefore write to the noble Viscount and., as always, put a copy in the Library.
In response to the right reverend Prelate, I can only repeat what I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. We are looking to an informal, bilateral arrangement along the lines of the arrangement between the inspectorate and the Prison Service agency. Local authorities will be involved in the development of clusters. They will still owe the normal social service duties to all families—I am happy to make that plain.
I believe I have now dealt with all the matters that have been raised and I shall finally sit down.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I have been waiting to follow my noble friend Lord Northbourne in his amendments and should like the opportunity quickly to ask the Minister what will be the inspecting and official visiting facilities in detention centres, not only relating to children but also to adults. Will there be a board of visitors? It is important that when people are incarcerated in any institution that they have the right to access to an independent body. Will that independent body, as a board of visitors in a prison has, have direct access to the Home Secretary?
Following on from the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, I should like to add that drug-resistant tuberculosis is a real killer. So serious is this problem that the Government should set up screening facilities at all places of entry for refugees.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I can deal in a little detail with the question of the noble Baroness. The answer to her first concerns is found in Clause 148. I shall read it quickly, if that is of assistance. It says:
"The Secretary of State must appoint a committee (to be known as the Visiting Committee) for each detention centre. The functions … are to be such as may be prescribed by the detention centre rules".
Subsection (3) relates to the important matter the noble Baroness raised, and states:
"Those rules may, in particular, require members of the Visiting Committee for a detention centre (a) to pay frequent visits to the centre"—
that is more frequently than at least once every two years, as envisaged by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne—
"(b) to hear complaints made by persons detained in the centre"—
the specific point of the noble Baroness; and then the overarch:
"to report to the Secretary of State any matter which they consider it expedient to report".
1232
The clause goes even further than that:
"Every member of the Visiting Committee for a detention centre may at any time enter the centre and have free access to every part of it and to every person detained there".
I do not believe one could have a more rigorous inspection machinery, nor a freer one in the interests of those detained, than the one to be found in Clause 148. I shall now sit down.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 183:
Page 71, line 27, at end insert —
("( ) Subsection (1)(a), (b), (d) and (g) above do not apply to a person seeking asylum in the United Kingdom or a spouse or dependant of such a person.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment 118 to which your Lordships agreed on a Division. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, Amendment No. 118 was agreed to on a Division. However, it was part of a disparate group. I hope that I am not taking the noble Lord by surprise when I say that the conclusion of your Lordships on Amendment No. 118 was not taken to apply to the other matters in that group. Therefore, if the noble Lord wants to take the opinion of the House, he may want either to address your Lordships again or to take his chance as may be. I hope that that does not sound discourteous. We have covered a lot of work this evening. It seemed to me that Amendment No. 118 was different from the rest of the group. The other amendments in the grouping—Amendments Nos. 149, 150, 151, 183 and 184—were not subsumed in that vote.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I have never thought the noble and learned Lord to be discourteous; indeed, he is one of the politest Members of a very polite House. I am taken a little by surprise by the noble and learned Lord because, when a Division is held on the first amendment in a group, it is normal for all the others to go with it—in other words, they fall or they stand with it. I am also rather surprised because the noble and learned Lord hung his argument on his amendment, Amendment No. 124, which, subsequently, he did not move. Therefore, as I see it, there is no provision in the Bill at present to protect vulnerable disabled people and to make certain that they have the allowances which I, and others, feel that they need to ensure that their disability is ameliorated to some effect.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point. I hope that he does not feel legitimately aggrieved. I have tried to honour the bargain struck as fully as possible; in fact, I have been pro-active in saying that I will not move amendments, even when noble Lords have not raised the question. The noble Lord may remember that the reason I did not move Amendment No. 124 was because the noble

1233
Baroness, Lady Williams, raised a serious question on that amendment and Amendment No. 123 as to whether they were within the scope of the agreement which was outlined by my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer. I thought that she was right and I said so immediately. Therefore, I was disabled from arguing Amendments Nos. 123 and 124 because we had all agreed that that issue would be considered by the relevant committee and that we would have the benefit of its advice before returning to the matter.
I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said. Normally, if one has a headline clause and the other amendments in the group are consequential upon it, everything goes together. However, I do not see his amendment as consequential. It is possible that your Lordships think that the other items in the third group on the list, starting with Amendment No. 118 and including Amendment No. 183, might simply not be moved this evening, so that we can return to them at an appropriate time. By that time I will have deployed, or, preferably—I say this sotto voce, in case he is listening—my noble friend Lord Bassam will have deployed, the arguments on Amendments Nos. 123 and 124. As always, I am in your Lordships' hands.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I had always understood that such amendments did follow. However, I, too, am in the hands of your Lordships. This subject was not in fact raised in Committee. If this amendment had been discussed entirely on its own, it was never my intention to press it to a Division. I shall withdraw it this evening, but I advise the Government that I feel perfectly free to return to the subject on Third Reading, depending on what the noble and learned Lord tables in the way of amendments to help disabled asylum seekers. They do need help; indeed, very considerable help. In the light of what has been said, I shall withdraw the amendment tonight but may well return with a similar amendment on Third Reading.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am most grateful for the graceful way in which the noble Lord responded to my suggestion. I am saying specifically that I entirely accept his entitlement to raise this matter in an amendment on Third Reading, so that in no way is his point being shut out.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 184 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 185 and 186:
Page 71, line 34, leave out ("subject to immigration control") and insert ("to whom this section applies").
Page 71, line 37, at end insert—
("(3A) Regulations under subsection (3) may provide for a person to be treated for prescribed purposes only as not being a person to whom this section applies.
1234
(3B) In relation to the benefits mentioned in subsection (1)(f) or (g), "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Treasury.
(3C) In relation to the matters mentioned in subsection (2) (except so far as it relates to the benefits mentioned in subsection (1)(f) or (g)), "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Department.
(3D) Section 175(3) to (5) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (supplemental powers in relation to regulations) applies to regulations made by the Secretary of State or the Treasury under subsection (3) as it applies to regulations made under that Act.
(3E) Sections 133(2), 171(2) and 172(4) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 apply to regulations made by the Department under subsection (3) as they apply to regulations made by the Department under that Act.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 112 [Amendment of section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948]:
[Amendments Nos. 187 and 188 not moved.]
Clause 113 [Other restrictions on assistance: England and Wales]:
[Amendment No. 189 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 190:
Page 72, line 25, leave out ("made in respect of persons") and insert ("given effect to in relation to a person").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 191 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 192 and 193:
Page 72, line 29, after ("illness") insert ("and for care and after-care").
Page 72, line 31, leave out ("made in respect of persons") and insert ("given effect to in relation to a person").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 194 not moved.]
Clause 116 [Other restrictions on assistance: Scotland]:
[Amendments Nos. 195 and 196 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 197:
Page 74, line 27, leave out from beginning to ("person") in line 28 and insert (""(4) No arrangements under subsection (1) above may be given effect to in relation to a").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 198 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 199:
Page 74, line 32, leave out from beginning to ("person") in line 33 and insert (""(3) No arrangements under subsection (1) above may be given effect to in relation to a").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 200 and 200A not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 201:
Page 74, line 37, leave out from beginning to ("person") in line 38 and insert (""(3) No arrangements under paragraph (a) or (c) of subsection (1) above may be given effect to in relation to a").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 202 and 203 not moved.]
Clause 117 [Other restrictions on assistance: Northern Ireland]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 204:
Page 75, line 6, leave out from beginning to ("person") in line 7 and insert (""(3) No arrangements made under paragraph (1) may be given effect in relation to a").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 205 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 206:
Page 75, line 17, leave out ("and (5)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 207 and 208 not moved.]
Clause 118 [Support for children]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 209 to 212:
Page 75, line 40, leave out from ("under") to ("in") in line 43 and insert ("any of the child welfare provisions").
Page 76, line 8, at end insert—
("( ) "The child welfare provisions" means—

(a) section 17 of the Children Act 1989 (local authority support for children and their families);

(b) section 22 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (equivalent provision for Scotland): and

(c) Article 18 of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (equivalent provision for Northern Ireland).").

Page 76, line 11, leave out from ("under") to ("in") in line 12 and insert ("any of the child welfare provisions").
Page 76, line 14, after ("means") insert ("—

(a) in relation to Northern Ireland, the authority within whose area the withdrawn accommodation was provided;

(b) in any other case,")

On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 212A not moved.]
Clause 119 [Back-dating of benefits where person recorded as refugee]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 213 to 217:
Page 76, line 23, leave out from beginning to ("provide") and insert ("Regulations may").
Page 77, line 8, after ("regulations") insert ("made by the Secretary of State").
Page 77, line 11, after ("regulations") insert ("made by the Department").
Page 77, line 14, after ("regulations") insert ("made by the Secretary of State").
Page 77, line 17, after ("regulations") insert ("made by the Department").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Dholakia Lord Dholakia moved Amendment No. 218:
After Clause 123, insert the following new clause—
("PART VIA
IMMIGRATION SERVICE COMPLAINTS AUTHORITY
IMMIGRATION SERVICE COMPLAINTS AUTHORITY
.—(1) There shall be an authority to be known as the "Immigration Service Complaints Authority", hereinafter referred to as the "Authority".
(2) The Authority shall be comprised of members appointed by the Lord Chancellor's Department, from a panel comprised of individuals with proven experience in the community, local government or academia of monitoring and investigating the use or abuse (or both) of coercive powers.
(3) The Authority shall appoint officers, who will monitor and investigate complaints about the use of powers contained in this Act or the Immigration Act 1971.
(4) The authority shall devise and issue a handbook outlining the procedures to be followed when making a complaint and the steps which will be taken to investigate such a complaint, after consultation with all relevant organisations and individuals.
(5) The authority shall recommend disciplinary or criminal action against immigration officers against whom complaints are upheld, where appropriate.
(6) The Authority shall publish an annual report on its activities.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that I raised this issue during the Committee stage. I am fortunate that on this amendment I have the backing of other noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley. He was present tonight for some considerable time but he has an important engagement and has asked me to say that he would like the House to know that he supports the principle of this amendment. Most of your Lordships will know that the noble Lord was at one time Home Secretary. I am also very fortunate to have the backing of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who was at one time the Permanent Secretary at the Home Office.
I was delighted with the reply that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, sent to the noble Lord, Lord Cope., of which I have a copy. Under paragraphs 29 to 36, the letter dealt with the issue of complaints made against immigration and entry clearance officers. However, the noble Lord's reply does not address the perceived need for independent scrutiny of complaints made against immigration officers, who are being provided by the Bill with the kind of coercive powers usually reserved for police officers.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, is proposing to continue the present system, instituted to deal with complaints about officers with largely administrative powers, whereby complaints about immigration officers are sent to a complaints office within the Immigration and Nationality Department. These complaints are then investigated by officers who are also within the Immigration and Nationality Department. The results of their investigations are

1237
then monitored by a two- or three-person complaints audit committee appointed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who is responsible for the Immigration and Nationality Department. The committee then reports back—not to the wider public or to Parliament but to the Secretary of State.
This may well be an example of good management practice and be designed to ensure that the Secretary of State monitors the performance of his immigration officers, but it does not provide the public scrutiny necessary when immigration officers have been provided with powers to enter and search individuals' homes, deprive them of their liberty and subject them to body or strip searches. Such powers are contained in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, appears to believe that publicising the present system and giving the complaints audit committee a more proactive but unspecified role will provide the necessary safeguards to ensure that immigration officers do not misuse their new powers. However, these measures do not address the basic shortcomings of the present system. First, the system contains no element of direct public accountability and will not necessarily be perceived to be fair and unbiased; nor will it be trusted by the diverse communities which will be subject to these new powers. Secondly, it is not transparent; the whole process is internal to the Home Office.
Furthermore, if there is a perception that there will be no effective redress should the new powers not be exercised lawfully, the immigration officers charged with exercising these powers will be deprived of the community support which could assist them to fulfil their duties in the most effective manner.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has failed to address the fact that the investigation of an allegation of unlawful detention or illegal entry of property demands different skills and training from the investigation of incidents of rudeness or inefficiency. If the complaints investigation unit and the complaints audit committee were to take on this new role, they would have to be radically restructured and new staff brought in. That would involve financial implications and yet it would not necessarily command the necessary public confidence because it will still be identified as part of the department employing the very officers about whom the complaints are being made. It would seem better value for money for the Government to provide funding for an independent immigration service complaints authority.
We believe that when a group of civil servants and others are given such wide-ranging powers as those contained in the Bill—which threaten to breach basic rights to privacy and liberty and the right to a fair hearing of any immigration or asylum appeal—it is imperative to ensure the widest possible public scrutiny of the exercise of those powers. We believe that that is achievable only if an independent complaints authority is established. The authority should be appointed by the Lord Chancellor and not by the Secretary of State for the Home Office; it should
1238
be empowered to carry out its investigations using only its own staff; and it should report directly to Parliament.
We also believe that the present system whereby a complaints audit committee of two or three people appointed by the Secretary of State for the Home Office monitors the effectiveness of internal immigration service complaints procedures and reports back to him on an annual basis is at best an example of departmental self-appraisal.
I make no criticism of individuals involved in immigration audit. In fact, they perform a very useful task. However, I shall explain why that particular procedure is not appropriate. It lacks the capability and objectivity to investigate sensitive complaints against immigration service staff and to institute swift action to eradicate malpractice before it takes root. Moreover it is not of sufficient weight to counterbalance the inroads into civil liberties being introduced by Part VII of the Bill.
I believe that the existing Complaints Audit Committee is limited in its scope for investigating complaints arising out of powers contained in Part VII of the Bill. When the independent audit committee was established, Mr Charles Wardle, the Under-Secretary of State at that time, said in another place,
"The Committee's remit will be to satisfy itself of the effectiveness of the procedures for investigating complaints".
That is what he is talking about here—looking at the effectiveness of the procedures. I repeat, it is not about the procedures for investigating complaints, nor the investigation itself, but,
"to draw … management's attention to any weaknesses".
That was the basic purpose underlying the establishment of that particular body. The total number of complaints must be a matter of concern in view of the millions of passengers who are now dealt with at airports, including those who claim asylum status.
It may be interesting to examine the similarity with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act regarding provision for complaints against police officers. Let us remember that in many cases in the Bill before us we have given immigration officers powers similar to those of police officers. The present Home Secretary, when dealing with the matter of police complaints, spoke clearly of the need to introduce an independent element into the police complaints machinery.
The Macpherson Report on the investigation into the death of Stephen Lawrence refers to the need for some independent element in the complaints procedure. It is right and proper that there should be an independent complaints committee which can examine complaints against immigration officers.
I believe that at this stage we have a golden opportunity to set up an authority of this kind. The success of our immigration policy depends on the confidence the public will have in the way we operate the system. Transparency is vital and the Government

1239
must provide it. I hope that they will accept the amendment and take the necessary action to establish such an authority. I beg to move.
11.30 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, what a relief to speak to one amendment in one group! I have to say to the Minister that we are delighted to support the Government in grouping as much as we can, but they should realise that occasionally that requires verbal and physical dexterity to deal with all the issues. We are extremely grateful to both noble Lords.
I can be very brief. We support the principle of the amendment, but we view it with an entirely open mind. We look forward to the Minister's reply.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, at this late hour I too shall be brief. The arguments advanced by my noble friend Lord Dholakia deserve careful consideration, and I wish to adduce only two further arguments to add to those he has already made.
The powers given to immigration officers under the Bill are sweeping. They include powers to arrest without warrant, even when no offence has been committed in cases where the immigration authorities have reason to suspect that someone may be using fraudulent documents or may have tried to escape his conditions of bail, and so forth. Any form of arrest without warrant is extremely troubling in a society such as ours where the whole system of law has been consistently constrained by the need to secure a warrant before arresting someone living in this country. It is clearly a major responsibility of Parliament to look carefully if powers are ever given to arrest without warrant.
In this situation such powers may be justified because in some cases people may be trying to leave rapidly from the attempt to scrutinise their reasons for being here. Having said that, if one cannot take the measures to prevent any arrest without warrant, it is all the more important to have a system of clear accountability. The Government may respond that they have a system of accountability by extension with the PACE codes which apply to police complaints. Our argument would be that that really will not do. The powers of immigration officers are not the same as those of police officers. Their training is not the same; the job they have to do is not the same; and, unlike police officers, in many cases they will have to deal with people whose language and culture are very far removed from those of the people with whom most police constables have to deal most of the time.
In this situation there ought to be a separate complaints authority. It ought to be staffed in a different way from the Police Complaints Authority and it ought to have on it people who have knowledge of how to deal with immigration problems, who have an understanding of other countries and know
1240
something of their cultures. With great respect, none of that is met by the proposal simply to extend the scope of the Police Complaints Authority.
We ask the Government to think carefully about this amendment. I adduce one final argument in favour of it. It is crucial that people have trust in the good faith of immigration officers. Over many years the trust in the good faith of police officers has been built up, although I think Ministers would agree that, from time to time, even that has been shaken and they have then responded most vigorously and quickly to the kind of concerns to which cases such as the Lawrence case lead. In this case there could be more complaints because the business of the job that immigration officers have to do is frankly even more difficult than that of the police, and there are not quite so many cases where the public are only too happy to welcome their intervention.
So simply on the ground that it is critical that the immigration authorities retain the trust not only of the British community but also of those who come into this country seeking refuge, there should be a system of accountability. We on these Benches are not wholly satisfied that that has been met by the present arrangements. We are grateful for the support in principle of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, when speaking to an earlier amendment I referred to the fact that my law firm is deeply involved in immigration and asylum issues. From a severely practical point of view, there is one overwhelming virtue in the amendment. I refer to the independence that it will bestow on the complaints authority. This Government have shown a remarkably committed wish to improve race relations in this country. It is an extremely fraught area of our national life. It is full of difficulties and it is desperately difficult for all concerned to get right. Immigration and asylum are aspects of race relations which are even more difficult than the average.
I commend the Government on what they are trying to do in the Bill. However, I find it a little perplexing that there is resistance to the notion of an independent complaints authority, because the independence of a complaints authority will be of most benefit to the Immigration Service itself. I suspect that, as vas found to be the case with the police, the lack of independence of the old regime was a perpetual problem, try as they would to deal fairly with the public.
I add my voice to those of my noble friends Lord Dholakia and Lady Williams. I hope that the Government will see that the issue of independence is crucial. It is crucial for the complainant; it is no less crucial for the immigration authorities; and, in a sense, it is no less crucial for the Government, because in the end it is the Government who have to pick up the mess that can be created by a general miasma of suspicion. Non-independent complaints arrangements are in a sense self-defeating.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I fully understand and support the reasoning behind this proposed new clause. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, for their comments. They spoke of "sweeping powers", a requirement for "independence", "transparency" and "objectivity", and said that the Government should demonstrate an understanding of the reasons for independence in a complex field of race relations and its interplay with immigration and asylum matters. We are well aware of, and alive to, the issues raised.
I fully recognise that immigration officers must be clearly accountable for their actions when exercising their powers and that an effective complaints system is vital to maintaining confidence in how they operate.
Yes, we need a system that is independent and objectively monitored. Yes, we need a system that can take quick action to eradicate malpractice. There is no argument about that. Yes, we need a system which is flexible enough to respond to different types of complaint. And yes, we need a system which is understood by those who may wish to use it. But the system needs to be proportionate to the problems that complainants typically bring forward. That is what we are looking at here.
I believe that creating a rigid, inflexible, statutory system would be a serious mistake. The framework for an administrative system in which the public can have confidence already exists, and we intend to enhance and strengthen it to ensure that it is more accessible and to ensure the proper handling of complaints arising out of the exercising of the powers contained in Part VII of the Bill. I do not believe that legislation would provide a greater degree of protection, scrutiny or transparency than already exists.
I intend to deal with the concerns about the accountability of those who operate the immigration control, which I recognise as the primary motivation behind this new clause. However, before I do so, I intend to deal with some of the serious practical difficulties that it causes.
The clause seeks to establish a complaints authority which would oversee and investigate complaints about the use of powers contained in this Bill or the 1971 Act. The exercising of powers under the Bill and the 1971 Act involves a range of persons both inside and outside the Home Office. The clause would bring police constables who exercise powers under Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act within the auspices of the immigration complaints authority. It would also include superintendent registrars exercising powers under Clause 157 of the Bill. Would its jurisdiction also extend to local authority staff involved in providing asylum support? It risks introducing a labyrinthine bureaucracy which would invariably slow down the process and delay any remedial action being taken.
1242
Statutory systems can be rigid, hard to change, impersonal and remote and too lengthy in their response times. An unwieldy system is to the benefit of no one except those who would gain advantage from delay. We all accept that there are those who would gain such advantage in this field.
I agree entirely that the system needs to be independently and objectively monitored. An independent body, the Complaints Audit Committee, was established in 1994 to monitor the investigation of complaints against immigration officers. Members of the committee are appointed by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and must meet certain criteria, such as that outlined in the proposed new clause: experience in race relations, community relations, immigration law, customer relations and local or central government.
Members of the committee are given unfettered access to all complaint investigations and are able to make critical comment on the quality of the investigation and its conclusions. They have access to Ministers. They are required to produce an annual report for the Secretary of State. The Home Office is required to respond to the committee's recommendations and criticisms. Changes can be introduced urgently without the need for amending legislation. I do not accept that the objectivity of the Complaints Audit Committee is impaired simply because it is appointed by the Home Secretary rather than a body outside the Home office. As noble Lords are aware, the Home Office covers a wide portfolio, from race relations to immigration control and I can assure noble Lords that there is no conflict of interest.
In its last report, produced in April 1999, the committee commented favourably on the health of the immigration complaints system as audited against the headings of the Citizen's Charter and Complaints Task Force check list. It might be helpful also if I were to provide the House with figures about the current system. In 1998, only 369 complaints were lodged against the Immigration Service. Nearly 90 per cent were quality of service issues. They concerned rudeness or inefficiency of an administrative nature. As I argued earlier, we must try to keep the potential problem in proportion.
Of the 369 complaints, 30 per cent were found to be wholly or partially substantiated. That does not indicate a system which is failing to work. Rather it indicates an organisation which approaches this difficult area with openness and objectivity. Complainants are seen personally and, if appropriate, their concerns are listened to. It is a human system where wrongs can be righted quickly. I wish to make it clear that any complaint which alleges criminal activity by a member of the Immigration Service will be investigated independently by the police.
The level of complaints might appear to raise questions about the visibility of the current system. But it is worth pointing out that the Police Complaints Authority receives one complaint for every seven police officers. The Immigration Service receives one

1243
for every eight officers. But this is an area where we can and will make improvements; we are committed to that. One of the key requirements of the Citizen's Charter is that information on how to complain should be easily accessible in appropriate languages. That is being systematically introduced. Notices will be placed in police stations and enforcement offices and no doubt in other appropriate locations.
Immigration officers will be given new powers of entry, search and seizure as a result of Part VII of the Bill. However, we intend to exercise caution in introducing the powers. Only a limited number, around 20, will be initially authorised to test and use the new powers. They will be given extensive training, with the emphasis being placed on conflict resolution and the use of interpersonal skills to diffuse difficult situations. They will only target cases where the risk is anticipated to be low. This modus operandi should help further to reduce the potential for complaints. They will be accountable in the exercise of their powers. Powers of entry, search and seizure are limited by the provisions contained in the Bill. They will be required to have regard to the relevant provisions of the PACE codes of practice when exercising the new powers.
The codes not only govern the exercise of statutory powers; they also serve to regulate the manner in which officers conduct their duties. Immigration officers will be no different. If they break operational guidelines, they will be accountable and properly disciplined.
A paper which details our existing complaints procedures and outlines the further measures we intend to take to strengthen them was placed in the Libraries of both Houses in May this year. Briefly, we shall treat complaints arising from the exercise of the new powers separately from others. They will be investigated by a small team of specially trained officers who will have knowledge of enforcement law and practice and the PACE codes. The Complaints Audit Committee will have sight of each complaint as soon as possible after receipt in order to monitor progress and ensure that investigation of the complaint is receiving the right degree of attention and priority. The procedures will be reviewed after one year to ensure that they are working satisfactorily. If they need strengthening, we can do it without legal constraint.
It is in everyone's interests, not least the immigration officers themselves, that their powers are underpinned with the proper levels of accountability and control. The codes of practice, when taken alongside the safeguards written into the legislation, the enhanced complaints procedures and the comprehensive training programme that those officers exercising the new powers will be required to undertake, provide a level of accountability which is both workable and proportionate. It protects those against whom the new powers are to be used while providing the Immigration Service with a clear and explicit framework within which to operate.
1244
I suggest that this clause, though well meaning in intention, is not required to ensure its objective. It would be a mistake to introduce it and I cannot, therefore, invite your Lordships to support it.
11.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, and before he nails his colours to the mast on that reply, I ask him to study the remarks of his noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton on Amendment No. 115 about the inconvenience caused to the Home Office by repeated applications for judicial review. I ask him to consider whether this alternative may be preferable to that one.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as ever, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his comments, observations, guidance and good advice. The noble Earl refers to nailing one's colours to the mast. We believe that the system that we have in place is robust. I outlined in my earlier comments ways in which we shall keep it under careful review and monitor and strengthen it. There is a need for a system of complaints auditing that is proportionate to the size of the problem, and I believe that I have argued that case well.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for having gone to such trouble to give his explanation. I remain to be convinced by the arguments that he advanced. I can also produce figures, but I shall resist that temptation at 10 minutes to midnight. Needless to say, I shall study his reply very carefully and return to this matter at Third Reading. Having worked with the Commission for Racial Equality and been a member of the Police Complaints Authority, I know that if there is no independent mechanism, at some stage one must be invented. This is the opportunity to do so. I shall return to this matter at Third Reading. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 124 [Arrest without warrant]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 218A:
Page 80, line 3, at end insert—
("( ) In relation to the exercise of the powers conferred by subsections (3)(b), (4)(b) and (5), it is immaterial that no offence has been committed.
( ) In Scotland the powers conferred by subsections (3), (4) and (5) may also be exercised by a constable." ").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in this grouping, one finds Amendments Nos. 218A., 218B to 218D, 229 and 290A. I deal first with the Government's amendments. Amendment No. 218A is in two parts. The first clarifies the position when an arrest is made on reasonable suspicion of an offence of facilitation, harbouring or obstruction. This makes it plain that, if the immigration officer can demonstrate

1245
that he has reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence has been committed, the arrest will be lawful even if it transpires later that no offence actually took place. Not to clarify the position would make the power of arrest unworkable.
The second part of this amendment rectifies a defect in Clause 124 as it applies to Scotland. Powers of arrest for offences of facilitation, harbouring and obstruction are provided in subsections (3), (4) and (5) of Clause 124. Police constables are not specified. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland the police already have parallel powers of arrest under PACE, but PACE does not extend to Scotland. This amendment addresses the anomaly in the clause and ensures that constables in Scotland have the same powers of arrest as immigration officers and police officers in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Amendment No. 290A is technical. Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act provides immigration officers with powers to arrest those persons liable to be detained under Schedule 2. This includes illegal entrants and those who are refused leave to enter. This power of arrest is extended to Schedule 3 to the 1971 Act to allow those liable to detention under that schedule also to be arrested. Clauses 128, 130, 131, 132 and 135 insert new paragraphs into Schedule 2 to provide immigration officers with powers of search, seizure and retention when conducting arrests under that schedule. This amendment clarifies that those powers can be used when the arrest is effected under Schedule 3.
I turn next to the opposition amendments (if I may so describe them). Amendments Nos. 218B to 218D would remove the power of a justice of the peace in Scotland to issue warrants authorising immigration or police officers to enter and search specifically identified premises to carry out an arrest or to search for evidence. The granting of warrants is a core function of justices of the peace in Scotland and something that is done routinely. They already grant warrants under the Immigration Act 1971 and the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 to allow police constables to enter, search and arrest for immigration offences. Clauses 125 and 127, to which these amendments refer, will allow immigration officers as well as constables to execute warrants. I would not have thought that that would significantly impact on the consideration of applications for warrants by justices of the peace in Scotland.
Justices in Scotland grant warrants to agencies other than the police; for example, the utility services and HM Customs and Excise. They are given guidance and training that covers all of their duties, and I am not aware of any operational difficulties associated with their grant of warrants. Indeed, the local nature of justices of the peace means that they are more accessible outside routine hours and, therefore, give valuable assistance when warrants are urgently required. I cannot see any reason to differ from the existing and accepted practices in relation to warrants for entry, search and arrest when dealing with the immigration offences detailed in this Bill.
The effect of Amendment No. 229 would be to restrict the use of reasonable force by an immigration officer to the powers contained in Part VII. As drafted, Clause 142 allows the use of reasonable force, where necessary, in the exercise of any power in this Bill or the 1971 Act.
What we seek to do—I think that we have succeeded—is to give a proper, legal framework for immigration officers to work in. Reasonable force in a particular circumstance is, of course, a matter for the courts, depending on the particular circumstances and the power being exercised. It may be helpful if I explain that enhanced training in the legal concept of reasonable force and its practical consequences will be given to immigration officers.
This is not a new area. Police officers derive their powers from common law, from the Criminal Law Act 1967 and from Section 117 of PACE. Immigration officers also derive their powers from the common law and from the Criminal Law Act. Restricting the explicit use of force only to Part VII of the Bill I think would cause mischief which is unintended. I cannot support the amendments. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for dealing with Amendments Nos. 218B to 218D. The amendments were tabled after concerns were expressed by the Law Society of Scotland. Thinking of his previous incarnation, the Minister will know that when one receives a concern from a law society one takes it with all due seriousness.
The concerns were twofold: that the justice of the peace may not be legally qualified and may be unfamiliar with the criteria needed to grant a warrant. The remarks of the noble and learned Lord about training are helpful. It is a concern of the Law Society that this matter should remain within the sole ambit of the sheriff. I shall study with care the Minister's remarks. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will also consider the Law Society's point about whether a justice of the peace is legally qualified.
I am grateful for the Minister's explanation. In the light of that I shall not move the amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 125 [Search and arrest by warrant]:
[Amendments Nos. 218B and 218C not moved.]
Clause 127 [Entry and search of premises]:
[Amendment No. 218D not moved.]
Clause 136 [Detention of persons liable to examination or removal]:
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 219:
Page 93, line 35, at end insert—
("( ) In paragraph 18 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act, at the beginning there is inserted—
"(A1) Persons may be detained under paragraph 16(1) above for a period not exceeding 48 hours in such places as the Secretary of State may direct, and after that in a detention centre as defined in section 143 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment corresponds closely with one which was spoken to in Committee. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, replied to it a t col. 1623 of the Official Report of 28th July.
The purpose of the amendment is to provide that where a person having arrived in the United Kingdom has to be detained, he can be held initially only for 48 hours in a place other than a detention centre. At the end of that period he must be transferred to a detention centre. The Government's policy, as set out in the White Paper, is to detain people at the beginning of the application process for asylum in a limited number of cases where doubt arises as to the applicant's identity. One hopes that the vast majority of those people who need to be detained are held at the end of the process when they have been through the mechanism of appeal and are on the way to being sent back to their country of origin having failed in their applications. Under those circumstances we accept that it is frequently necessary to detain; otherwise the person has no incentive to report when he is required to present himself for removal.
At the beginning of the process it is a different matter. We hope that the proportion of those having to be detained on arrival will be very much lower although when one looks at the figures, one sees that that is still not the case. We are still seeing a preponderance of those being detained held on arrival and therefore the criteria set out in the White Paper are not being observed.
As we are having to detain quite a large number of people on arrival, we want to make sure that they are held in proper facilities. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, accepted that that was a desirable objective. He made the point that it was frequently impossible to find a detention centre within the 24-hour limit. Therefore, we have tried to make it easier for the Government by extending the period to 48 hours.
This is a very simple amendment. Therefore, I hope that the Government will be disposed to accept it. It would mean that the number of people sent immediately to prison on arrival would be enormously reduced. They are sent to prison all too frequently at the moment. I very much regret the fact that people have to be accommodated in Rochester and Haslar, which are prison establishments, and not in detention centres which are designed for the purpose.
As the Minister knows, the Chief Inspector of Prisons recommended as long ago as 1997 that people should be held only in detention centres. The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention came here to look at the way we deal with asylum. It echoed the recommendation of the chief inspector. The Government have accepted that we should work towards that objective. The only reason why they cannot accept that it should be done immediately is simply because of the problem of providing the bricks and mortar. Aldington will not be in operation until the year 2001. There is a new special purpose detention centre being developed in the North. There are
1248
indications that the Government may wish I o convert Haslar from a prison establishment into a detention centre. It will be useful if the Minister can say whether that is a fixed policy or whether it is still a possibility in the Government's mind.
I very much hope that this opportunity will be taken by the Government to reaffirm that it is their objective to move towards a situation where we do not need to detain people in prison except in a very limited set of circumstances such as when they have committed a criminal offence and when, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, mentioned in an earlier debate, they exhibit violence on arrival. That is practically the whole list of circumstances under which it would be necessary to put someone in prison. I know that the Government are of the same mind in that we object very strenuously to the idea that people who have committed no criminal offence should find themselves in the prison system. This amendment is designed to work towards that position. I hope that the Government accept it. I beg to move.
Midnight
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I speak also to Amendment No. 230, which comes before Clause 143 and provides for a maximum length of administrative detention. Only this morning I received a letter from a Roman Catholic religious Sister. She writes,
"After working with detainees over the last five years, I believe the considerable majority to be genuine asylum seekers".
Another wrote to me from Surrey, stating:
"I have been visiting Tinsley House near Gatwick for the last five years. I have watched detainees' health and morale deteriorate as detention persists from month to month. They suffer depression, anxiety and insomnia. Everything is uncertain. They are a very vulnerable group.".
A letter to me from a man in Brighton states:
"I have been visiting detainees for three years and have seen the terrible effects that detention has on many detainees. They are estranged from home, family, culture and country.".
I have quoted from independent eye witnesses who have been going into detention centres over a long period of time, particularly under two different governments. Their observations are confirmed by a study on the mental health of detainees conducted by Dr. Pourgidez, of which I am sure the Home Office has a copy.
For a long time, many of us have been asking for a time limit on the detention of people whose asylum or immigration cases have not yet been determined. We are regularly told that this is not possible and the departmental refrain goes something as follows: individual cases are regularly reviewed at progressively higher levels. I think that the word processors must be getting weary of churning that out, but the fact remains that individuals languish in custody, sometimes in prison, always in limbo, and sometimes for longer than six months.
In seeking to set a maximum length of six months, I have deliberately chosen this period because it coincides exactly with the target set by the

1249
Government for initial decisions in asylum cases and for consequential appeals. If it is going to be possible to deal with all new cases in that period, surely the much smaller number of detainees held at any one time can be processed and either released or deported within six months. I believe that such a time limit would concentrate official minds enormously.
I emphasise that we are talking about people who are charged with no offence. They are merely suspected of wishing to abscond or of some procedural irregularity. They should not be subject to indefinite detention.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I want to speak to Amendment No. 221. Before doing so, I want to thank the noble and learned Lord and the department for amendments significantly to improve the situation in Northern Ireland.
I welcome the Minister's undertaking that the Home Office and the Northern Ireland Prison Service will carry out a joint review of future provision for detention facilities in Northern Ireland. Each year, 40 to 45 immigrants are detained in prison. At present, whether they be male or female, they are detained in prisons and in a situation where they are liable to be there not with the ordinary, average crook but with serious terrorists.
Furthermore, at least one of the prisons in which they are detained is about 80 miles from Belfast. The last time I looked, the average detention time was a minimum of one month and often six. I strongly make the point that special facilities are needed for such a situation. Because the numbers are not great, it works both ways. One might say that it is not serious; there are only 40 or 45 detainees. Equally, to provide the necessary facilities in a reasonable way is not too demanding.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the first thing that any normal prisoner does on finding himself in prison is to start counting the days until his release. It is often the mechanism which keeps a prisoner going until he comes out. If one has no stated time for release, one cannot do that. That is one reason why imprisonment without limit of time is more undermining to the character than any other form of normal imprisonment.
There is also the question of the arbitrariness of power. That is something which this House, over many centuries, has made considerable efforts to control. Short of arbitrary infliction of death without trial, arbitrary imprisonment without limit of time is one of the most arbitrary forms of power known. If we believe in a settled and known rule of law, that is not something that we in this House should encourage.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, perhaps I may make a couple of comments on Amendment No. 230. In Committee I was pressing the Government to bring in the compulsory six-month period and I also asked the noble and learned Lord certain questions about that. I had the advantage of a letter from him subsequently,
1250
in which he made the point strongly that those detained for long periods are normally exposed to such detention as a result of their own action in making successive unmeritorious appeals and representations, renewing asylum claims or refusing to co-operate with applications for travel documents.
I can understand what the noble and learned Lord is saying here. I had previously assumed that that long delay was a problem at the Government's end, but the noble and learned Lord is making the point that the delays are often caused by the applicant. I wonder exactly what would happen if we brought in this six-month compulsory period, so that, if the matter was still proceeding and the asylum seeker had to be released from detention, where would he then go? Would he just disappear into the black market of the country, or would he have bail conditions to meet? I can see that there are problems.
Therefore I am not as strongly in favour of the six-month period as before. The noble and learned Lord told me that on 22nd July there were 120 people in detention who had been detained for six months or more. Is he able to give us an up-to-date figure and tell us whether that number is being reduced now, or whether it has increased or remained steady? I myself would no longer be able to support the compulsory six-month limit.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, following the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, I also wonder whether the introduction of the general right to bail, which everyone has welcomed, has not actually strengthened his argument. We are now seeing more releases on bail and therefore one might well think of a guide time, even if it is not a statutory length of time.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, would he agree that in all cases bail needs to be set at a reasonable amount?
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I wish briefly to support what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, with respect to his own experience of visiting detention centres. My noble friend Lord Dholakia and I have also visited some detention centres and I should like to take this opportunity to put on record the huge debt that everyone in this House, in another place and in the Home Office owes to the scores of people who give up their time, as volunteers, to visit detainees, and often, I believe, keep them sane.
I believe that in many cases, without the support of volunteers, many people detained for any length of time—and, as my noble friend Lord Russell has pointed out, without any sense of when they may be released—would simply fall apart or suffer from nervous breakdowns. It is important that we in this House pay credit to that deeply dedicated group of people in all the detention centres around the country. Furthermore, it is not to be simply disregarded that the United Nations High Commission for Refugees has singularly advocated the idea of a limit to the amount of time that people can normally spend in detention. UNHCR has a terrible job to do. What happens in an

1251
advanced country like Britain has a great deal of impact on what happens in other countries. When UNHCR calls for a limit to be set, there should be good reasons for saying why we cannot abide by that limit. I have not yet heard reasons which seem to me to be adequate.
Finally, I must say a few words of commendation for the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. It is difficult to escape the irony that people now may be detained who have committed no crime other than to come to this country, usually fleeing from a despotic regime. One cannot help but occasionally compare that with the release system for people who have extremely serious crimes on their hands in Northern Ireland. We all understand why those releases take place but I conclude by saying that in the case of asylum seekers, perhaps the quality of mercy should not be utterly strained.
12.15 a.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am looking ahead to our proceedings. Noble Lords may be interested in particular groups of amendments. Therefore, it may be helpful if I give a general indication in that regard. Amendments Nos. 269 and 273 have been tabled in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. If we reach those amendments, I was proposing to offer to have full discussions with the noble Lord and the noble Baroness in relation to them. The discussions will be with either myself or the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. Therefore, it may be that noble Lords interested in those amendments will not have to wait until we reach them.
The amendments in relation to ECHR statements are in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Cope and Lord Goodhart. That can be taken briefly because in that regard I shall be making concessions which are rather better than those asked for by the Select Committee. I shall not move Amendment No. 289. Therefore, I should tell any noble Lord who is interested in that amendment that I shall not be moving it. I hope that is helpful but I see there is no exodus.
I have a good deal of sympathy with what lies behind these amendments. We must bear in mind that incarceration, whether in detention or in prison, will bring about some of the consequences of which all noble Lords have spoken, perhaps most graphically described by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton.
We have publicised our commitment to reducing reliance on Prison Service accommodation for immigration detainees. It is a priority to reduce the ad hoc use of prisons, though there will always be some need to detain people in prisons for reasons of geography, security or control.
I am most grateful, as always, to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, for his remarks. As he said, the numbers in Northern Ireland are extremely small. I cannot say conscientiously that we are persuaded that they justify the cost of a dedicated detention centre.
1252
The adoption of Amendment No. 219—and I entirely understand the reasons for it—would mean that detainees in Northern Ireland and Scotland would have to be moved to England. Therefore, it would not be easy for friends and family who want to visit or for representatives who may be unable to continue involvement in the case. It certainly would not be to the benefit of the detained person.
There are occasions when it may be scrupulously necessary to provide for detention in hospitals in the interests of the asylum seeker. The amendment would forbid that.
Amendment No. 220 does not seem to be consistent with the previous amendment because it would allow those detained under paragraph 16(2) of Schedule 2 to be detained in such places as the Secretary of State may direct without restriction. Therefore, the amendment should not be accepted for the reasons that I have given.
As I read it, Amendment No. 221 is intended to prevent the detention of individuals with convicted prisoners under Immigration Act powers in Northern Ireland. I believe that the amendment is defectively drafted as it does not refer to the relevant schedule which, we believe, is Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act, but I entirely agree that that does not go to the paint of the noble Lord's remarks.
In addition to paragraph 16 of Schedule 2, separate detention powers are also contained within paragraphs 2(1), 3(1), and 3(2) of Schedule 3 to the 1971 Act. Thus the amendment would create two classes of detainee in Northern Ireland: some who could be detained with convicted prisoners and others who could not.
The amendment makes no reference to Immigration Act detainees in England, Wales or Scotland. So we would still find ourselves able to detain people under the Immigration Act powers in England, Wales and Scotland, as well as some people in Northern Ireland, with convicted prisoners, but I believe that that is piling anomaly on anomaly.
I share the concern that we should not keep detainees with convicted prisoners. The free association at Magilligan prison means that immigration detainees are held in non-segregated conditions. Magilligan is currently the only adult prison in Northern Ireland which is suitable for the needs of male immigration detainees. For the reasons that I gave, I cannot honestly say that I can see any practical alternative, but we are conscious of the problem. I am grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said. I reiterate that we intend to undertake a joint review of future provision of detention facilities in Northern Ireland—that is, jointly between the Home Office and the Northern Ireland Prison Service.
If we take away the option of keeping people in Magilligan, we are back to the problem or moving people to prisons in England, Scotland or Wales. I

1253
believe that that would be difficult for those in Northern Ireland. Therefore, I cannot accept that amendment.
With regard to Amendment No. 222, we said that we would exercise particular care in deciding whether to detain those who were physically or mentally ill. That commitment remains. I entirely agree that those who are vulnerable in the category that I mentioned should, as far as possible, be cared for in the community or by appropriate authorities where some form of residential care is necessary. Some people have to be detained where there are strong grounds to believe that they will not comply with conditions for temporary release or bail.
Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 230 which proposes that there should be a maximum period of detention of six months. The Government have already made clear their commitment to keep the length of detention as short as possible. An important aspect of what we are doing is to be found in the bail rights: first, the entitlement to a bail hearing within a short period of time; secondly, a statement of reasons; and, thirdly, a general right to bail where the statutory exceptions are not to be found.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, is quite right. If one has a six-month overall limit, many people—it is their right and I do not complain about it—will go through the appeal procedure and then try judicial review or ECHR proceedings. The system simply is not capable of coping to the extent that it could be guaranteed. Every conceivable avenue of appeal would have been explored and exhausted in the six-month period.
I remind noble Lords of the figures that my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer gave this afternoon. From memory, there were 1,300 or so applications for judicial review with only 300 or so successful; over 1,000 failed to get over the elementary hurdle of showing a good arguable case.
We cannot accept six months as a limit that would be imposable or practical in all cases. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, spoke of arbitrary detention. If there are regular rights to bail application, if reasons are given and there is the presumption that bail will be given, subject to statutory exceptions, I do not believe that continued detention is arbitrary in the proper sense of the term because it is a conclusion arrived at judicially.
I recognise the concerns. The best we can do is to make the system quicker and more efficient, give decent facilities for bail applications and provide as good accommodation as we can in the mean time for some of those, whom I think everyone accepts, may have to be detained.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention looked at the circumstances in which people were detained in the United Kingdom and recommended that there should
1254
be a time limit. So, by inference, the United Nations working group sees detention beyond a certain point—it was not defined—as being arbitrary.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it was looking at a system which is not the system that this Bill is intended to provide.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, it was still considering the periods for which people were detained. It was saying that beyond a certain point detention becomes arbitrary.
It is the duty of the Government to provide mechanisms which ensure that people get all the way through the appeal system and the legal processes within the period mentioned in Amendment No. 230. Six months is a perfectly acceptable time in which those procedures could be accomplished if we had an efficient system. If decisions were made promptly, and if when the decisions were adverse the decisions went before an adjudicator in rapid time, then six months would be a reasonable maximum.
When I consider the people who are held for longer than six months and the time it has taken for them to go through these processes, I see that as a result of government inefficiency. I do not blame the individuals for the actions they take in trying to pursue their cases. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, mentioned Tinsley House. Recently I had an appeal signed by five Cameroonians in Tinsley House. I looked into it because I was particularly interested in human rights in Cameroon. I looked also at the statement by one of the adjudicators in those cases. He said he did not know anything about an attempted coup in 1984 in Cameroon. He was not aware of any of the circumstances of recent years under the dictatorship of President Biya. He did not know, of course, about the 65 people who are awaiting treason charges in Cameroon and whose detention was said by Amnesty International to be arbitrary; and all that in spite of the fact that the Home Office now has country assessments which are supposed to be looked at by the adjudicators.
I wonder whether they do their homework properly. If that kind of decision is being made and people are being detained because adjudicators do not know the circumstances in the country of origin from which people come, it is no wonder the procedures take six months and that many of those who are aggrieved by the decisions of the appellate system go for judicial review.
I can see that we are not going to get anywhere with this appeal to the Minister in relation to the maximum period of detention. We shall therefore have to abandon our attempts for this evening. I do not feel either that we will make much progress on the first part of my argument regarding the period not exceeding 48 hours. I can see the arguments the Minister put regarding the necessity of transferring people to hospital in some cases. I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Faulkner, on a previous occasion made a good argument about the necessity for keeping

1255
people in custody in prison when they became violent, though that could have been dealt with under the criminal law.
We are at a late hour. I shall not pursue these matters now. However, I reserve the right to return to them on Third Reading. In the meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 220 not moved. ]
Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 221:
Page 93, line 35, at end insert—
("( ) In the 1971 Act, after paragraph 18(1) insert—
"(1A) A person detained in Northern Ireland under paragraph 16 shall not be held with convicted prisoners."").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that with pressure from the noble and learned Lord and his department, when the Northern Ireland Prison Service does its review it will find a way to cope with the two or three immigrants who have to be detained. In the circumstances I shall not move Amendment No. 221.
[Amendment No. 221 not moved. ]
[Amendment No. 222 not moved. ]
12.30 a.m.
Clause 137 [Fingerprinting]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 223:
Page 95, line 15, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall try to deal with this group of amendments as briefly as possible. This amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 224, 225, 226, 227, 228 and 270 and relates to controls over fingerprinting. I shall quickly deal with the effect of these amendments.
Amendments Nos. 223 and 224 are simply drafting amendments. Amendment No. 225 would make it mandatory for the authority of a chief immigration officer, or other designated persons of equivalent grade in the case of prison officers, constables and officers of the Secretary of State to be given before the fingerprints of a child under the age of 16 could be taken.
In addition, Amendment No. 225 makes it clear that the safeguards relating to the fingerprinting of children do not apply where a person authorised to take fingerprints reasonably believes that the individual whose fingerprints are to be taken is over the age of 16. This is necessary to prevent disputes arising about the age of an individual and whether the correct procedures were followed. The issue was debated in Committee. My noble and learned friend Lord Williams undertook to bring forward a government amendment to cover the point. Amendment No. 225 fulfils the undertaking that he gave to the noble Lord, Lord Cope.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 226, 227, 228 and 270 which deal with the destruction of fingerprints. Subsection (1) of Clause 139 provides that where an
1256
individual's fingerprints have not already been destroyed, they must be destroyed after 10 years. Amendment No. 226 provides a power to set a different period for this purpose. As a consequence of Amendment No. 270, this power is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. It provides us with flexibility so that we can, if necessary, take account of changing needs or circumstances in the future. For example, if there is evidence of systematic abuse, we may need to retain fingerprints for a longer period. If there is no such evidence, we will not need to retain fingerprints.
I shall now deal with Amendment No. 270. Under Clause 139(2) of the Bill, where a person proves that he is a British citizen, any fingerprints that have been taken must be destroyed. This amendment has the effect of extending this provision to Commonwealth citizens who have the right of abode in the United Kingdom under Section 2(1)(b) of the Immigration Act 1971. Under that section a Commonwealth citizen with a right of abode in the UK is deemed to be a British citizen for the purposes of the Act. We believe that it is only right, therefore, that such persons should, quite rightly, be treated in the same way as British citizens for the purposes of fingerprinting. I commend the amendments to the House. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, perhaps I may add that we on these Benches are certainly grateful for Amendment No. 225 which the Government have tabled in response to amendments put forward in Committee by my noble friend Lord Cope. We are indeed grateful for the Government's response.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I am afraid that, again, I cannot be quite as harmonious as the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. I have to express the great concern that we have on these Benches about Amendment No. 225 which allows the fingerprinting of children. It is perhaps a good thing that the right reverend Prelate, with his great concern for children, is with us tonight.
I shall be brief. I should like to begin by making the general point that there has to be an overwhelming argument for fingerprinting children under the age of 16, which is what this amendment makes possible. I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me when I say that Amendments Nos. 223 and 224 are a little more than drafting amendments because they deal with the issue of turning what was the word "shall" in subsection (10) of Clause 137 into the word "may"; in other words:
"No fingerprints shall be taken from A if the immigration officer considers that A has a reasonable excuse for the failure concerned",
now becomes:
"No fingerprints may be taken from A if the immigration officer considers that A has a reasonable excuse".
It means that even if the immigration officer thinks that the child, or "A"—who is defined as someone who has been required to produce a valid passport and has failed to do so—does not have a reasonable excuse for

1257
such failure, he or she will be fingerprinted under the changes to be made by the Government in these amendments.
In addition, as it quite well known, the fingerprinting would be able to take place for a child without the permission of parents and in some cases that would apply to an unaccompanied child. I believe that that would frighten almost any child. One would not like to see that practice indulged in unless there is an absolutely essential reason for doing so. We notice that there is a safeguard as regards a chief immigration officer having to agree to that procedure.
Will the Minister be kind enough to tell us what kind of assumptions he is making about the test that would be applied by the chief immigration officer, and does he see this as a largely exceptional procedure? Has the Minister given any thought to the fact—I am sure he has—that in some cultures passports are always kept by the father? This is particularly true of Muslim cultures. Therefore if a child from a Muslim culture comes to this country whose father has been lost on the way or has perhaps never made it, that child will almost certainly have some probably adult papers. Will the Minister bear in mind the effects of fingerprinting on unaccompanied children under 16? Can he assure the House that chief immigration officers will bear this in mind in making any decision that allows fingerprinting to take place? I must reiterate that we believe that the fingerprinting of children should never be done unless there are extreme reasons for doing so.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his kind words relating to Amendment No. 225. I refer to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, as regards the fingerprinting of children. It will clearly be the practice that we shall take fingerprints only when absolutely necessary. It is for that very reason that we have inserted the extra safeguard that such fingerprinting will have to be done with the authority of a chief immigration officer or another designated person of the equivalent grade. I am sure that they will take great care and give considerable thought to the way in which that power is exercised. Of course it will be done only in exceptional circumstances.
I can reassure the noble Baroness that Amendments Nos. 223 and 224 are purely drafting amendments and that the word "shall" does not appear elsewhere in the Bill. In the interests of consistency it was replaced by the word "may". I hope that with those assurances your Lordships will feel able to support these amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 224 and 225:
Page 95, line 17, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").
Page 95, line 18, at end insert—
("(11 A) An authorised person may not take fingerprints from a person under the age of sixteen unless his decision to take them has been confirmed—

(a) if he is a constable, by a person designated for the purpose by the chief constable of his police force;

(b) if he is a person mentioned in subsection (5)(b) or (e), by a chief immigration officer;

(c) if he is a prison officer, by a person designated for the purpose by the governor of the prison;

(d) if he is an officer of the Secretary of State, by a person designated for the purpose by the Secretary of State.

(11 B) Neither subsection (3) nor subsection (11A) prevents an authorised person from taking fingerprints if he reasonably believes that the person from whom they are to be taken is aged sixteen or over.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 139 [Destruction of fingerprints]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 226 to 228:
Page 96, line 2, leave out ("period of ten years") and insert ("specified period").
Page 96, line 5, after ("citizen") insert (", or
(b) a Commonwealth citizen who has a right of abode in the United Kingdom as a result of section 2(1)(b) of the 1971 Act,")
Page 96, line 41, at end insert—
("(15) "Specified period" means—

(a) such period as the Secretary of State may specify by order;

(b) if no period is so specified, ten years.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 142 [Use of force]:
[Amendment No. 229 not moved. ]
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton moved Amendment No. 230:
Before Clause 143, insert the following new clause—
MAXIMUM PERIOD OF DETENTION
(" .—(1) The maximum period for which a person detained in accordance with Schedule 2 or Schedule 3 to the 1971 Act may be held in a place of detention as specified in paragraph 18 of Schedule 2 to that Act must not in any event exceed six calendar months.
(2) For the purposes of calculating whether the maximum period of detention has been reached each and every period for which a detained person has been held in a detention centre or prison, whether or not the detention has been continuous, shall be taken into account.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, even though the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General is not present, I wish to say that I appreciate the care with which he responded to the general thrust of my amendment. It seems to me that the most unsatisfactory thing about the current practice of detention is the uncertainty as to its duration. Between now and the next stage of this Bill I wonder whether the Government will consider whether—perhaps in conjunction with written reasons for detention—some kind of indication could be given as to at least the

1259
Government's intentions on the likely length of detention in the case of particular individuals. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I shall reply briefly. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, makes a perfectly reasonable request. As it is a perfectly reasonable request I shall, perfectly reasonably, take it away and we shall consider the matter.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am most grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 143 [Interpretation of Part VIII]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 231:
Page 97, line 32, at end insert—
(""certified prisoner custody officer" means a prisoner custody officer certified under section 89 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, or section 114 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, to perform custodial duties;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I now turn to the government amendments to Part VIII and Schedules 10, 11 and 12. As your Lordships will know, these amendments concern detention and related matters. There are two consequential amendments in Schedule 13. The amendments are mostly technical and I shall deal with each clause and schedule as it arises.
Clause 143 lists definitions of various terms used in Part VIII. Amendment No. 231 defines "certified prisoner custody officer", which is a term used in Part VIII to cover those prisoner custody officers who are performing custodial duties. They must be certified under the Criminal Justice Act 1991 or the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to perform such duties. This differentiates them from those prisoner custody officers who may perform escorting duties, where the training and certification requirement is different. Amendment No. 233 provides a definition of "prisoner custody officer" for Northern Ireland so as to reflect the relevant provision of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. Amendment No. 232 amends the definition of "detention centre" to enable a prison to be used exclusively for immigration detainees without losing its status as a prison and without it having to be reclassified as a detention centre.
Clause 146 authorises the Secretary of State to enter into a contract with another person to provide detainee custody officers or prisoner custody officers to perform custodial duties at a directly managed detention centre. Amendment No. 234 is consequential to Amendment No. 231 and ensures that only prisoner custody officers who have been certified to carry out custodial duties may be engaged under this clause. Amendment No. 235 deletes text from Clause 146 which Amendment No. 231 renders unnecessary.
The objective of Clause 148 is to ensure that visiting committees are appointed to each detention centre and to ensure that rules will be made to set out their functions. Amendment No. 236 ensures, as promised
1260
in another place, that the core duties of visiting committees of making frequent visits, hearing complaints and reporting matters to the Secretary of State are a mandatory part of detention centre rules.
Clause 149 requires the Secretary of State to make detention centre rules. Amendment No. 237 deletes subsection (3), which refers to short-term holding facilities, as this is superseded by the new clause introduced by Amendment No. 255, to which I shall return later.
Clause 150 makes provision about certification of detainee custody officers. Subsection (5) allows the Secretary of State to use prison officers in place of detainee custody officers if he decides it is necessary and appropriate. Amendment No. 239 clarifies that where they are engaged in this context, prison officers continue to enjoy the powers, protection and privileges of a constable, just as they do in relation to their ordinary duties.
Clause 151 specifies who may carry out custodial duties at detention centres. Amendments Nos. 242 and 265, which are consequential to Amendment No. 231, ensure that only a prison custody officer who has been certified to carry out custodial duties may be so employed. Subsection (2) introduces Schedule 11, which makes provision with respect to discipline and other matters at detention centres. Amendment No. 243 adds reference in Clause 151 to short-term holding facilities as a consequence of various amendments made to Schedule 11, which extend that schedule to such facilities.
Clause 152 authorises the Secretary of State to make arrangements for escorting and related custodial functions and allows him to enter contracts for them to be performed by suitably certified detainee custody officers and prisoner custody officers. Amendment No. 253 inserts reference to the relevant section of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 under which prisoner custody officers are certified to perform escort duties. Amendment No. 254 adds reference to the Northern Irish provision of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 under which prisoner custody officers may be certified to perform escort functions in Northern Ireland.
Amendment No. 255 inserts a new clause after Clause 152 which allows for the extension of any provision of Part VIII, to the extent not already so extended, to short-term holding facilities. Clause 146 already extends to short-term holding facilities and is therefore excluded. The amendment also allows the Secretary of State to make rules for the regulation and management of short-term holding facilities. This will allow short-term holding facilities to be better regulated and more accountable than they are currently. This makes Clause 149(3) unnecessary.
Clause 153 creates an offence of wrongful disclosure of information by a detainee custody officer or prisoner custody officer. Amendment No. 265 is technical and clarifies the definition in subsection (3) of "contracted out functions" which indicates that only detainee custody officers and certified prisoner custody officers may be employed in contracts made under Clause 146.
Schedule 10 deals with the powers and duties of detainee custody officers and creates the offences of assault and obstruction of a detainee custody officer while he or she is performing his or her duties. Amendment No. 240 rectifies the omission of functions of a custodial nature at short-term holding facilities from the assaulting offence so as to bring it in line with the obstructing offence. Amendment No. 241 deletes sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) from the assaulting offence as they are made unnecessary by Amendments Nos. 281 and 295. Those amendments deal with the more serious offence of carrying out an assault while in possession of a firearm. I shall return to those amendments later.
Schedule 11 makes provision for discipline and other matters at detention centres. Amendments Nos. 244 and 245 add short-term holding facilities to the offences of aiding a person to escape either directly or by conveying, sending or placing a thing in or outside a place of detention with the intention of facilitating escape. As a consequence of Amendment No. 245, Amendments Nos. 246, 247 and 248 are necessary to provide for both detention centres and short-term holding facilities in paragraphs 4(2)(a), 4(2)(b) and 4(2)(c) which each relate to the facilitation offence.
Paragraph 7 of Schedule 11 places a responsibility on the contractor in a contracted-out detention centre, or the Secretary of State in a directly managed detention centre, to display a notice, known as a "penalty notice", setting out the penalties to which a person may be liable for committing offences under paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the schedule. Amendments Nos. 249, 250 and 251 are drafting amendments. Amendment No. 252 is required as a consequence of Amendments Nos. 244 and 245 and ensures that a "penalty notice" will be displayed outside a short-term holding facility so as to reflect the extension which is proposed to the paragraph 4 offence.
Paragraph 1 (2) of Schedule 12 specifies the duties of the escort monitor, who will be responsible for monitoring escort arrangements. One of those duties is to investigate and report to the Secretary of State on any allegations made against detainee custody officers in respect of their behaviour while conducting escort-related duties. This should sensibly extend to investigating the behaviour of prisoner custody officers who are engaged in escort duties. Amendment No. 256 rectifies this omission and makes appropriate provision for this purpose. Amendment No. 257 has been added to ensure that a prisoner custody officer is not investigated simultaneously by the escort monitor and prisoner escort monitor where the investigation falls to be conducted by the latter under the Criminal Justice Act 1991 or the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
Paragraph 3 of Schedule 12 deals with breaches of discipline by those under escort and specifies that any adjudication should be carried out by the responsible person in the institution to which the alleged offender is being escorted. In the case of a contracted-out detention centre, this would generally be the contract monitor; in a directly managed detention centre, the
1262
manager; in a contracted-out prison, the controller; and in a directly managed prison, the governor. Amendments Nos. 258, 259, 260, 261 and 262 ensure that no matter whether the escort is being carried out by a detainee custody officer or prisoner custody officer, the disciplinary procedures of detention centre rules apply when the person is being escorted to a detention centre and that prison rules apply when the escort is to a prison. Amendment No. 263 ensures that a person cannot be punished under prison rules for anything for which he or she has already been punished by a court just as it already does in relation to detention centre rules. Amendment No. 264 defines "Prison rules" for the purpose of the paragraph.
Schedule 13 deals with consequential amendments and, as I have previously mentioned, Amendments Nos. 281 and 295 amend the Firearms Act 1968 and the Firearms and Northern Ireland Order 1981, so that the more serious offence of assaulting a detainee custody officer while in possession of a firearm is dealt with under those two pieces of legislation.
I have covered many amendments. In the main, they are technical and straightforward provisions. Generally speaking, they do not alter the substance of Part VIII. I hope therefore that noble Lords will feel able to agree to them. I beg to move.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, this is a fairly enormous list of amendments for us to consider at five to one in the morning. However, I believe that there are many important issues that we should look at in some detail.
Can the noble Lord say a few words as regards the new provisions for visiting committees at detention centres? As the wording stands in Clause 148, the rules make provision for the visiting committee to,
"report to the Secretary of State any matter which they consider it expedient to report".
That wording closely follows that for boards of visitors in Her Majesty's prisons. The boards are entitled to make reports to the Secretary of State on any matter which they consider it expedient to report. However, Amendment No. 236 would replace the wording in the Bill with a provision that is less specific. It says simply that visiting committees are required to make reports to the Secretary of State, although not on any matter which they consider to be expedient.
Will the visiting committees have powers equivalent to those of boards of visitors in Her Majesty's prisons? Is there any reason why the wording in this statute should be different here from that which applies to boards of visitors in prisons? Does the Minister agree that the tasks and duties of the visiting committees at detention centres should be on all fours with those of boards of visitors in Her Majesty's prisons? If not, what are the reasons for such differences in the responsibilities and duties of one as compared with the other?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his questions, and I hope that my response will make the point clear. As I understand it, the rules will ensure that the visiting committees will

1263
have powers equivalent to those of boards of visitors to report to the Secretary of State on any matter they deem expedient.
The committees have a broad canvas, and we are not seeking in the new wording to narrow their ability to report on anything they wish. I hope that, with those comments, the noble Lord will be satisfied with what we are trying to achieve with these amendments.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, as regards annual reports by visiting committees, there has been some controversy over such reports from boards of visitors as to whether they should be obliged to publish them. Not so long ago the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, when he was in charge of prisons, undertook a consultation with the boards of visitors to establish whether any of them objected to the compulsory publication of their annual reports. Most of them accepted that, but a few preferred to keep them secret. I am not sure of the final result of that consultation, but I believe that it is important from the public interest point of view that reports from both prison boards of visitors and the new visiting committees for detention centres should be made available to members of the public.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point. We require transparency in such situations, and we have attempted to achieve that with the boards of visitors. The noble Lord has acknowledged that my noble and learned friend Lord Williams gave a commitment to review the matter. There is no reason why there should not be consultation with the visiting committees to establish the way in which their annual reports should be published. My understanding is that we shall be consulting them in some detail in the next month. With that, I am sure that the noble Lord will understand the importance of the amendments that we are bringing before the House and will readily support them.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 232 and 233:
Page 98, line 4, after ("facility") insert (", a prison").
Page 98, line 21, at end insert—
("( ) in relation to Northern Ireland, has the meaning given in section 122(1) of that Act of 1994;").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 146 [Contracted out functions at directly managed detention centres]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 234 and 235:
Page 100, line 9, after ("by") insert ("certified").
Page 100, line 10, leave out from ("person") to end of line 12.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 148 [Visiting Committees and inspections]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 236:
Page 101, line 7, leave out from ("rules") to end of line 12 and insert ("must include provision—

(a) as to the making of visits to the centre by members of the Visiting Committee;

(b) for the hearing of complaints made by persons detained in the centre;

(c) requiring the making of reports by the Visiting Committee to the Secretary of State.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 149 [Detention centre rules]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 237:
Page 101, line 28, leave out subsection (3).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 238 not moved. ]
Clause 150 [Detainee custody officers]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 239:
Page 102, line 9, at end insert—
("( ) A prison officer acting under arrangements made under subsection (5) has all the powers, authority, protection and privileges of a constable.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Detainee Custody Officers]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 240 and 241:
Page 135, line 13, at end insert (", or
( ) performing functions of a custodial nature at a short-term holding facility.").
Page 135, line 17, leave out sub-paragraphs (2) and (3).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 151 [Custodial functions and discipline etc. at detention centres]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 242 and 243:
Page 102, line 15, after ("or") insert ("a certified").
Page 102, line 22, at end insert ("and short-term holding facilities").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 11 [Discipline etc at Detention Centres]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 244 to 252:
Page 137, line 23, after ("centre") insert ("or short-term holding facility").
Page 137, line 25, at end insert ("or short-term holding facility").
Page 137, line 26, leave out ("detention centre") and insert ("centre or facility").
Page 137, line 27, leave out ("detention centre") and insert ("centre or facility").
Page 137, line 29, leave out ("detention centre") and insert ("centre or facility").
Page 138, line 17, leave out ("penalty notice") and insert ("notice setting out the penalty to which a person committing an offence under paragraph 4, 5 or 6 is liable").
Page 138, line 18, leave out ("a penalty") and insert ("such a").
Page 138, line 20, leave out sub-paragraph (3).
Page 138, line 20, at end insert—
(".—(1) In the case of a contracted out short-term holding facility, the contractor must cause a notice setting out the penalty to which a person committing an offence under paragraph 4 is liable to be fixed outside the facility in a conspicuous place.
(2) In the case of any other short-term holding facility, the Secretary of State must cause such a notice to be fixed outside the facility in a conspicuous place.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 152 [Arrangements for the provision of escorts and custody]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 253 and 254:
Page 102, line 42, after ("under") insert ("section 89 of").
Page 102, line 43, after ("114") insert ("or 122").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 255:
After Clause 152, insert the following new clause—
SHORT-TERM HOLDING FACILITIES
(".—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations extend any provision made by or under this Part in relation to detention centres (other than one mentioned in subsection (2)) to short-term holding facilities.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to section 146.
(3) The Secretary of State may make rules for the regulation and management of short-term holding facilities.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 12 [Escort Arrangements]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 256 to 264:
Page 138, line 35, after ("officer") insert ("or prisoner custody officer").
Page 138, line 38, at end insert ("; or
(b) an act or omission of a prisoner custody officer so far as it falls to be investigated by a prisoner escort monitor under section 81 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 or under section 103 or 119 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.").
Page 139, line 19, leave out ("detainee custody officer") and insert ("person ("A")").
Page 139, line 20, leave out ("place of detention") and insert ("detention centre").
Page 139, line 23, leave out ("the detainee custody officer") and insert ("A").
Page 139, line 24, at end insert—
("(2A) Sub-paragraph (2B) applies if a detained person for whose delivery or custody a person ("B") has been responsible in accordance with escort arrangements is delivered to a prison.
(2B) The detained person is to be treated, for the purposes of such prison rules as relate to disciplinary offences, as if he had been in the custody of the governor or controller of the prison at all times while B was so responsible.").
Page 139, leave out line 32.
Page 139, line 34, after ("rules") insert ("or prison rules").
Page 139, line 35, at end insert—
("( ) "Prison rules" means—

(a) rules made under section 47 of the Prison Act 1952;

(b) rules made under section 19 of the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989;

(c) rules made under section 13 of the Prison Act (Northern Ireland) 1953.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 153 [Wrongful disclosure of information]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 265:
Page 103, line 32, after ("or") insert ("certified").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dholakia Lord Dholakia moved Amendment No. 266:
Before Clause 159, insert the following new clause—
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
(" . It is unlawful to do any act which constitutes racial discrimination when exercising any powers under this Act or any other of the Immigration Acts.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall be brief. First, perhaps I may say how grateful I was to have the opportunity to meet the Minister and his advisers and to be able to talk about the contents of this amendment and Amendment No. 293, to which I shall also speak.
The purpose of my amendment is to follow up the suggestion made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Jack Straw, who, when responding to questions about his response to the recommendations made in the Stephen Lawrence inquiry, agreed to amend the Race Relations Act to make it applicable to immigration officers.
Our main concern has been a cautious government response to the proposals that have been forwarded to the Home Office by the Commission for Racial Equality. Therefore, it was right and proper that we should try to incorporate some of the amendments in the existing legislation.
There are a number of governmental functions that are outside the scope of race relations legislation in this country. For example, if I am discriminated against in the field of employment, I can go to the tribunal. If I am discriminated against in the provision of housing, I can go to the county court to seek remedy. But if I am discriminated against by an immigration officer in the provision of services, I have no recourse whatsoever. It was therefore essential to try to bring immigration officers within the scope of the race relations legislation.
That is where a difficulty arises. Immigration law, by its very nature, incorporates some of the areas that are considered discriminatory within the scope of the definition of discrimination, both direct and indirect. I have in mind matters of ethnicity and national origin, which are some of the issues that complicate the amendment that we propose.
Therefore, on the basis of my discussion with the Minister, I believe it is much better to suggest that he may wish to examine the amendment and consider the best way to proceed to incorporate our suggestion in

1267
some form of government legislation at some stage in the future. I do not even ask for a government response by Third Reading. However, I hope that there will be a holistic approach to this proposal in terms of the race relations legislation which the Government have taken on hoard. I should be grateful for the Minister's response. Then we shall see where we go from here.
Earl Russell: My Lords, some provision along the lines of this amendment is necessary. I spoke recently to a colleague who is a member of the Committee of the Regions, who recently returned to Waterloo on Eurostar and observed who was detained by immigration on arrival. Every single one of those people happened by coincidence to be black. That kind of story causes no surprise. I wish that it did.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I merely want to add one other example to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Russell. I make it a habit on my rather frequent trips in and out of Heathrow to watch and see who is detained as we go through the process. It is correct that the number of people who are detained who appear to come from African or Asian countries seems very much higher than the number of those who come from other non-EU countries. That is just an observation. I am a very frequent traveller and it disturbs me somewhat. It is important to ascertain for certain that when people are detained it is not on racial grounds, but simply on the genuine grounds that there are reasons for being suspicious of a particular person. That is reasonable. The Government have an excellent record in race relations and I hope they will consider my noble friend's proposal.
1 a.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, although I accept the principle behind the amendment, it gives us concern. It seems to me that by its very nature, immigration into this country at airports will be of people from those countries where one could say that detention was racial discrimination when it was not. It is a fact of geography. We do not want that being used in any way to fetter the good and fair job done by immigration officers. We shall be interested in the Minister's reply, but would be concerned if anything happened that caused any immigration officers to think twice before carrying out part of their proper duties.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lords, Lord Dholakia and Lord Lester, for bringing the issue to the House for us to consider. It is an important and interesting area.
The effect of Amendments Nos. 266 and 293 would be to apply the provisions of the Race Relations Act 1976 to acts carried out under the Immigration Act 1971 as amended, including by the current Bill.
As I explained to the noble Lords when we met in the House last night to discuss the issues, the Government are sympathetic to the principle of extending race relations provisions to cover the immigration system
1268
and those who operate it. We are sympathetic to the principle and understand the point of the arguments made.
On 24th February this year, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced in a Statement in another place on the Stephen Lawrence inquiry report that the Government will,
"extend the Race Relations Act 1976 not just to cover the police, as the report recommends, but to cover all the public services. That means in the civil service, the immigration service and the national health service, for example, the law will back those who have been the subject of discrimination".—[Official Report, Commons, 24/2/99; col. 392.]
Any individual members of the Immigration Service must act in accordance with those requirements in handling individual cases and applications. The Government are committed to that and we have made it clear that we shall introduce suitable legislation as soon as the parliamentary timetable allows.
However, I am afraid that the noble Lords' amendments, while representing an important recognition of our commitment, are flawed, regrettable though that is, and would pre-empt our own detailed consideration of how the provisions of the Race Relations Act should be extended to cover the uniquely sensitive and difficult area of immigration. For example, the amendments might, if adopted, prevent the Home Office from carrying out special exercises aimed at providing protection to particular ethnic groups seeking shelter in the United Kingdom, such as the many Kosovans who were granted exceptional leave to remain during the recent crisis in the Balkans. They would also impact on the ability of the department to differentiate between different nationalities and different ethnic groups when dealing with asylum applications. That is the point made earlier by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor.
The ability of the Immigration Service to carry out special exercises would be affected when we are confronted by immediate operational pressures of the kind we have seen recently at Dover. Those operations could be seriously impaired. That is just a flavour of the difficulties which would arise from too great haste in approaching those complex and difficult issues.
I hope that noble Lords will agree to withdraw their amendments in the light of that. We shall, of course, continue to develop policy in this area so that we give suitable effect to my right honourable friend's commitment. However, we do that while recognising that the operation of the immigration, asylum and nationality arrangements necessarily and legitimately entails some discrimination on grounds of ethnic or national origins. We simply seek to introduce legislation that is coherent, all-embracing and covers the various service areas that it needs to cover. I hope that in those circumstances the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, will feel able to withdraw his amendment, which all noble Lords accept is tabled with integrity and in the spirit in which government policy is directed.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. We have always believed

1269
that certain exceptions will be necessary. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, quite rightly pointed out some of the difficulties in legislation of this nature. But I believe that this gives the Home Office the opportunity at the appropriate time to introduce legislation that provides the appropriate exceptions. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 267:
After Clause 159, insert the following new clause—
PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS AS TO APPLICATIONS
(" . In the 1971 Act, after section 31, insert—
"Procedural requirement as to applications.
31A.—(1) If a form is prescribed for a particular kind of application under this Act, any application of that kind must be made in the prescribed form.
(2) If procedural or other steps are prescribed in relation to a particular kind of application under this Act, those steps must be taken in respect of any application of that kind.
(3) "Prescribed" means prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(4) The power to make regulations under this section is exercisable by statutory instrument.
(5) Any such statutory instrument shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 267 is a straightforward amendment which has the effect of making it compulsory that applications on a particular basis, to be defined by way of regulations, must be made on a prescribed form. In addition, the amendment provides that the Secretary of State can prescribe any particular procedure or other steps that must be followed. The provision of a photograph is perhaps one such example.
Since November 1996, all applications, with the exception of those from asylum seekers, work permit holders and EEA nationals, for a variation of leave have to be made on an application form. Applications made in any other way, or on incomplete application forms, are rejected as invalid. This amendment simply puts the status of application forms and the conditions attached to their completion on a statutory footing in primary legislation. I beg to move Amendment No. 267 and commend it to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 160 [Regulations and orders]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 268:
Page 108, line 22, at end insert—
("( )section (Defences based on Article 31 of the Refugee Convention)(11),").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Bridgeman Viscount Bridgeman had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 269:
Page 108, leave out lines 24 and 25 and insert—
("(d) Part VI, (e) paragraph 1 of Schedule 8, or").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in view of the very helpful offer by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, to hold talks with my noble friend Lord Cope and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby—I believe that in this matter I can speak for the noble Baroness—I do not intend to move either Amendment No. 269 or Amendment No. 273.
[Amendment No. 269 not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 270:
Page 108, line 25, after ("92(3),") insert—
("( ) section 139(15),").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Bridgeman Viscount Bridgeman had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 271:
Page 108, line 27, after ("unless") insert ("a Minister has certified that the proposed order is compatible with the Human Rights Convention and").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in view of the forecast of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, of a helpful response to Amendment No. 271, I do not intend to move it.
[Amendment No. 271 not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 272:
Page 108, line 31, at end insert—
("( ) section (Applications for bail in immigration cases);").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 273 to 275 not moved.]
Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby moved Amendment No. 276:
Page 108, line 38, at end insert—
("( ) Any statutory instrument or draft statutory instrument laid before either House of Parliament under this Act must be accompanied by a certificate by the Minister in charge of the instrument to the effect that he is satisfied that the instrument is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have been asked to move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Goodhart. It relates to the question of certification of regulations under the terms of the European Convention on Human Rights.
I mention two factors. As the House well knows, we are now committed to the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into British law. This Bill has major impacts on human rights. It is therefore appropriate that we should be careful in considering its relationship to the European convention on two points: under Article 3 on the issue of families and freedom of movement and Article 8 on issues of privacy. Many aspects of the Bill bite on those and other articles in the European convention.
Throughout the Bill, the Opposition parties have shown great sensitivity to the recommendations of the Select Committee on delegated legislation. The Government have responded generously to our concerns. They have borne in mind the strictures of the

1271
Select Committee. But nowhere in the Bill has the Select. Committee made its position clearer than with regard to the necessity for statutory instruments and draft statutory instruments to carry the statement that they are believed to be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, as is the whole Bill.
The Bill carries a statement of its compatibility with the European convention. However, as the Select Committee pointed out, under its aegis a great many regulation powers exist. The power to make secondary legislation exists in point after point throughout the Bill. Therefore, for very good reason the Select Committee said:
"We invite the House to consider whether the subject matter of these provisions requires Parliament to ensure that the powers are exercised only in ways compatible with Convention rights. We believe that this leads to the conclusion not only that affirmative procedure is needed for a significant number of these powers but also that there should be a specific ECHR safeguard".
I am sure that the Government have listened closely to what the Select Committee said. I am sure they also recognise their major part in making the European convention a part of British law by incorporating it. Therefore I do not need to spend more of the time of the House in making clear the position that we, and I believe the Official Opposition, take: that there should be a specific ECHR safeguard on every statutory instrument or draft statutory instrument produced as a result of this Bill. I beg to move.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, we entirely support the noble Baroness's comments on the question of human rights. I am confident that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will address the point, as he forecast earlier today.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the amendment was originally grouped with Amendments Nos. 271 and 274 which have now been withdrawn. They would require a statement of ECHR compatibility—that is what the Select Committee recommended—whether on the face of the Bill or at least by means of an undertaking by Parliament about the approach to be adopted. We feel that Amendment No. 276 goes further by requiring all secondary legislation to be accompanied by a statement of ECHR compatibility.
The committee's recommendation—it was confined to secondary legislation subject to the affirmative procedure— has wider implications for secondary legislation. I am content to leave my noble and learned friend Lord Williams to deal with the matter at a later stage. I respectfully suggest that it would be appropriate at this stage for Amendment No. 276 to be withdrawn so that those further discussions can take place.
1.15 a.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I point out that the Select Committee said that at the very least an undertaking was required. It made it quite plain that it would much prefer there to be the rather more sweeping
1272
commitment for which we have been pressing. At this late stage, I shall not press the matter further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 164 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 277:
Page 110, line 6, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("( ) Subsections (1) and (2) of section 111 come into force on the day on which the first regulations made under Schedule (Provision of Support: Regulations) come into force.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is grouped with a number of largely technical amendments to Clause 164 and Schedules 13 and 14. This amendment should be withdrawn as it is subject to our earlier agreements.
[Amendment No. 277 not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 278:
Page 110, line 8, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) The following provisions come into force on the passing of this Act—

(a) section (Accommodation centres for those temporarily admitted or released from detention);

(b) section 7;

(c) section (Protection of claimants from removal or deportation);

(d) section (Charges: travel documents);

(e) section (Defences based on Article 31 of the Refugee Convention);

(f) section 89;

(g) section 90(12);

(h) sections 101 to 105;

(i) section 106(1), (1A) and (4) (so far as relating to subsections (1) and (1A));

(j) section 107;

(k) section 120;

(l) section 136;

(m) section 141;

(n) section 142(1);

(o) section 160 to 162;

(p) this section;

(q) Schedule 8;

(r) paragraphs 57(2), 64, 67, 68, 70, 71, 76, 77 and 90A of Schedule 13;

(s) paragraph 6 of Schedule 14.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the rest of the government amendments in this grouping relate to commencement. They cover a number of largely technical amendments to Clause 164 and Schedules 13 and 14 to the Bill. Amendments Nos. 277 and 278 concern Clause 164 of the Bill which relates to the short title, commencement and extent. This is a straightforward consequential amendment arising from government amendments to Part VI and the insertion of a new schedule on regulations regarding the provision of support to asylum seekers.
Government Amendment No. 278 sets out the provisions of the Bill which will enter into force on Royal Assent. These are that the new clause on

1273
accommodation centres for those temporarily admitted or released from detention will enable us to place residence restrictions on persons granted temporary admission to help to alleviate pressure in London and the south-east. Clause 7 makes special provision for certain overstayers. This will enable us to prescribe the regularisation period and to publicise the provision to those affected.
The new clause on the protection of claimants from removal or deportation will allow the Home Office to serve refusal and removal notices at the same time. The new clause on charges for travel documents will provide the Home Office with a proper statutory basis for charging. The new clause provides for defences based on Article 31 of the refugee convention and various provisions regarding regulations or interim provisions for asylum support.
All the powers listed in Amendment No. 278 are required to be available at the earliest opportunity to help to deliver the fairer, faster and firmer system of immigration and asylum to which we are committed. Those relating to asylum support are essential to place on a proper footing the interim provisions before the main provisions enter into force next year.
Other provisions in the Bill not listed in Amendment No. 278 will come into effect in accordance with the commencement orders. Timing will depend on the making of any necessary regulations or orders and the necessary administrative and practical steps necessary to put the provisions into operation.
Perhaps I may take this opportunity to confirm that, subject to Parliament's further consideration of the Bill, the Government attach a high priority to implementation of the new civil penalty for carrying clandestines which Part II of the Bill provides.
The effect of Amendments Nos. 286 and 287 will be to extend the grounds on which an immigration officer may examine a person who has arrived with extant leave to enter and those on which he may cancel that leave. Under the provisions contained in Clause 1 of the Bill, people will arrive in the UK with extant leave. The Bill also provides through Schedule 13 for those persons to be examined by an immigration officer and their leave cancelled where false information has been provided, material facts not disclosed, or where there has been a change of circumstances since leave was given.
Those provisions are drawn from paragraph 3(2)(1) of the current Immigration Rules which concern the refusal of leave to enter of persons in possession of an entry clearance. That paragraph of the rules also provides for refusal if justified on the grounds of restricted returnability, on medical grounds, on grounds of criminal record, because the person seeking leave to enter is the subject of a deportation order, or because exclusion would be conducive to the public good.
As the essence of the new scheme is that a person will have been granted leave after all appropriate checks have been made, cancellation of leave on most of those additional grounds would be covered by two
1274
provisions contained in Schedule 13. However, legal advice suggests that it will not be possible to rely on those provisions in certain circumstances where there are medical or non-conducive grounds for reexamination and cancellation of the leave to enter.
Amendments Nos. 286 and 287 are designed to deal with this flaw and to bring Schedule 13 more into line with existing powers. Amendment No. 288 is a simple but necessary amendment which provides an in-country right of appeal for those people who arrive in the United Kingdom with leave to enter which has been granted before their arrival and where that leave to enter is then cancelled by an immigration officer. That amendment will safeguard the position of persons who would have travelled here with a reasonable expectation of relying on their leave to enter.
Finally, we come to a number of technical amendments to Schedules 13 and 14. The effect of Amendment No. 284 is to extend the provisions of Section 32 of the Immigration Act 1971 to clarify the legal position of orders, notices, directions and certificates issued under the Immigration Act 1988; the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993; the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996; and the Immigration and Asylum Bill. The amendment ensures that such orders, notices, directions and certificates have the same evidential status as those made under the 1971 Act. In addition, this amendment extends Section 32(2) of the 1971 Act to cover certificates issued by IND caseworkers and immigration officers on behalf of the Secretary of State.
Amendment No. 309 is an example of the draftsman's art being overtaken by the legislators. The provision, which we now seek to delete, was framed to act as an interim provision pending the coming into force of the Tax Credits Act 1999. As that Act is now in force—as family credit has been replaced by working families' tax credit and disability allowance by disabled person's tax credit—the interim provision is no longer required.
Amendment No. 311 is a drafting amendment consequential on amendments made on the first day of Report to Clause 7. As now amended, Clause 7 allows the last day of the regularisation period during which overstayers may apply for leave to remain and retain their existing appeal rights to be as prescribed by the regulations or, if later, on the day before Section 59 comes into force. Technically speaking, therefore, the day may not necessarily be "prescribed". "Fixed" covers either means by which it may be set. I invite your Lordships to accept all of these largely technical amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 279:
Page 110, line 14, at end insert—
("( ) A day for the entry into force of Part VI of this Act in Northern Ireland shall not be appointed until an assessment has been carried out under section 75 and Schedule 9 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Bill extends to Northern Ireland and the provision so extending it would be followed by my amendment, if passed. It provides that the provisions in Part VI of the Bill will not come into force in Northern Ireland until an assessment has been carried out under Section 75 and Schedule 9 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
The amendment is designed to cope with the different situation in Northern Ireland arising from the 11998 Act. Section 75 provides that:
"A public authority shall, in carrying out its functions relating to Northern Ireland, have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity between persons of different religious belief, political opinion, racial group",
and so forth. Public authority is defined in subsection (3) as:
"any department, corporation or body listed in Schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 and designated for the purposes of this section by order made by the Secretary of State".
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, as I understand it, has consulted the United Kingdom departments to establish whether they have any objection to being designated under Section 75. The reply from the Home Secretary is still, awaited, so we do not know whether the arrangements to be made under Part VI of the Bill will be subject to scrutiny under Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act. If they are, Schedule 9 to the Act states that,
"The public authority to which this sub-paragraph applies shall submit a scheme to the Commission"—
that is, the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland,
"and that scheme shall state in particular the authority's arrangements for assessing compliance with its duties under Section 75, and for consulting on matters to which the duty under that section is likely to be relevant, and for assessing and consulting on the likely impact of policies adopted or proposed to be adopted by the authority on the promotion of equality of opportunity".
Therefore, what I am saying in this amendment is that the provisions for support under Part VI of the Bill will not come into effect until that assessment, mentioned in paragraph 4(2) of Schedule 9 to the Northern Ireland Act, has been carried out in relation to the Home Secretary.
It would be useful if the Minister could tell us what the situation is regarding the views of the Home Secretary in respect of designation because the time does not allow for much further delay. I say that because the provisions of Section 75 are for it to come into force in Northern Ireland on 1st January 2000. Therefore the decision has to be made and the assessment be under way by the end of this year. Time is therefore very short for the arrangements to be put in place for the assessment to be conducted.
I believe that noble Lords would agree that it is reasonable, if the Secretary of State is going to be subject to arrangements under Section 75, that those should have been completed before that part of the Act comes into force in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for decoupling his
1276
amendment so that we can spend just a few moments longer giving it fair and reasonable consideration. The amendment suggests that we should not bring the new arrangements into play in Northern Ireland until an equal opportunities assessment has been carried out. That opens up the rather bizarre prospect of a different timescale for the implementation of Part VI in Northern Ireland.
Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 imposes certain statutory obligations on public authorities carrying out functions relating to Northern Ireland. They must have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity in terms of a number of categories, including racial groups. Without prejudice to that obligation, they must also have regard to the desirability of promoting good relations between persons of different religious belief, political opinion or racial group. Schedule 9 to the Northern Ireland Act sets out a framework for implementing those obligations.
In particular, it requires public authorities to submit equality schemes to the new Equality Commission for Northern Ireland within six months of the schedule coming into operation. Those equality schemes will include the public authority's arrangement for assessing and consulting on the likely impact of policies on the promotion of equality of opportunity.
The Equality Commission, as the noble Lord is aware, took up its duties on 1st October, but the statutory obligation under Section 75 will not take effect until 1st January 2000. The Act lays out a system for complaints about the implementation of equality schemes to be considered by the Equality Commission.
The noble Lord's amendment does not indicate who should carry out an impact assessment of Part VI of the Bill. It is not clear whether that would be required from Northern Ireland public authorities, such as the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland, or whether the Home Office would be required to carry it out.
There is provision in the Northern Ireland Act for Section 75 to apply to UK departments but only if they have been designated by order. No final decisions have yet been made as to which departments will be so designated. In the light of that and the practical concerns and considerations which I have put forward in this short discussion, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, it is rather extraordinary that the Minister cannot tell us whether the Home Office will be subject to the provisions of Section 75. That is a vital piece of information to which your Lordships are entitled. If the Home Office agrees to be designated—and I cannot see any reason why it should not—then ultimately it would have to conduct the impact assessment mentioned in the amendment. That is shorthand for the assessment mentioned in paragraph 4(2) of Schedule 9, as I mentioned in my introductory remarks.

1277
We need to know whether, in implementing the arrangements for support in Northern Ireland, they will be subject to an assessment of the kind that is required in that schedule. If we do not know that, it creates all sorts of difficulties for those who are concerned with racial equality in Northern Ireland. However, I can see that the Minister is not going to reply this evening. Perhaps he did not fully understand the way in which this will affect the question of racial equality in Northern Ireland and how Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act is to be implemented.
Having given the Minister an explanation of the amendment, I shall leave him with time to reflect on the matter and perhaps we can return to it on Third Reading. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 13 [Consequential Amendments]:
[Amendment No. 280 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 281 to 288:
Page 143, line 16, at end insert—
("The Firearms Act 1968 (c. 27)
. The Firearms Act 1968 is amended as follows.
. In Schedule 1 (offences for which there is an additional penalty if committed when in possession of a firearm), after paragraph 5B insert—
".5C. An offence under paragraph 4 of Schedule 10 to the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (assaulting a detainee custody officer)."
. In Schedule 2 (which lists corresponding Scottish offences), after paragraph 13A insert—
"13B. An offence under paragraph 4 of Schedule 10 to the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (assaulting a detainee custody officer)." ").
Page 144, line 19, at end insert—
(" . In section 11(1) (entry to the United Kingdom), at the end insert "or by Part III of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999".").
Page 144, leave out lines 23 and 24 and insert—
(".—(1) Section 27 (offences by persons connected with ships or aircraft) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (a)(ii), after "Schedule 2 or 3" insert "or under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999".
(3) In paragraph (b)(iii)—

(a) after "arrangements for" insert "or in connection with"; and

(b) at the end insert "or under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999; or").

Page 144, line 27, at end insert—
(" .—(1) Section 32 (proof of documents) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2)—

(a) for "this Act" substitute "the Immigration Acts"; and

(b) after second "by him" insert "or on his behalf".

(3) In subsection (3), for "proceedings under Part II of this Act" substitute "other proceedings under the Immigration Acts".
(4) In subsection (4)—

(a) for first "this Act" substitute "the Immigration Acts"; and

(b) for "proceedings under Part II of this Act" substitute "other proceedings under the Immigration Acts".

(5) After subsection (4) insert—
"(5) "Immigration Acts" has the same meaning as in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999."
(6) The amendments made by sub-paragraphs (2)(a) and (5) apply whenever the document in question was made or issued.").
Page 144, line 30, after ("determined") insert ("—

( ) in relation to an appeal to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, in accordance with section 7A of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997;

( ) in any other case,").

Page 145, line 2, at end insert ("; or

(c) whether there are medical grounds on which that leave should be cancelled.").

Page 145, line 2, at end insert—
("( ) He may also be examined by an immigration officer for the purpose of determining whether it would be conducive to the public good for that leave to be cancelled.").
Page 145, line 18, after ("Act") insert ("and Part IV of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 289:
Page 146, line 8, leave out from ("2") to ("sub-paragraph") in line 11 and insert ("paragraph 21 (temporary admission of persons liable to detention) is amended as follows.
(2) After sub-paragraph (2) insert—
"(2A) The provisions that may be included in restrictions as to residence imposed under sub-paragraph (2) above include provisions of such a description as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(2B) Regulations made under sub-paragraph (2A) may provide that a particular prescribed description of provision may be imposed only for prescribed purposes.
(2C) The regulations may, among other things, provide for the inclusion of provisions—

(a) prohibiting residence in a particular description of accommodation;

(b) prohibiting residence in one or more particular areas;

(c) requiring the person concerned to reside in accommodation provided under section (Accommodation for those temporarily admitted or released from detention) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 or in such other description of accommodation as may be prescribed by the regulations;

(d) prohibiting the person concerned from being absent from his accommodation except in accordance with the restrictions imposed on him.

(2D) The power to make regulations conferred by this paragraph is exercisable by statutory instrument and includes a power to make different provision for different cases.
(2E) Any such statutory instrument is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
(3) In sub-paragraph (3), after "2" insert "or 2A".
(4) In").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we indicated earlier that we wished to leave this amendment to one side.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, perhaps I may explain why we are concerned about Amendment No. 289. We are concerned about the extremely wide powers which the amendment proposes which are prescribed by regulations. For example, it seems that someone may be obliged to live in particular accommodation provided by the Secretary of State and may be forbidden to leave it. We are concerned that that comes near to the definition of an open prison whereas in fact the person is in that accommodation because he has been released from detention.
I ask the Minister to consider this matter before Third Reading. Perhaps we may have sight of the draft regulations. However, I leave this matter for the Minister's consideration and perhaps he will write to us about it.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, that was my understanding. I understand why the noble Viscount has moved this, but I thought that this was caught within the understanding between both sides of the House and that this was one of those matters that was subject to consideration by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. I hope that we can leave this until those discussions take place before Third Reading.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Viscount and the noble Baroness are quite right. As I indicated, we had not intended to move this amendment this evening. We shall endeavour to describe further how we see these regulations working. If I am pressed I shall be happy to write to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, on the matter. No doubt all will be made clear as the Select Committee looks in detail at this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 290 to 292:
Page 146, line 28, after ("53,") insert (" 59,").
Page 146, line 33, at end insert—
(". In Schedule 3, in paragraph 2(4) (application of certain provisions if person detained under Schedule 3), for "and 18" substitute ", 18 and 25A to 25E".").
Page 146, line 39, at end insert—
(" . In Schedule 4 (integration of United Kingdom and Islands immigration law), for paragraph 3 (deportation) substitute—
"3.—(1) This Act has effect in relation to a person who is subject to an Islands deportation order as if the order were a deportation order made against him under this Act.
(2) Sub-paragraph (1) does not apply if the person concerned is—

(a) a British citizen;

(b) an EEA national;

(c) a member of the family of an EEA national; or

(d) a member of the family of a British citizen who is neither such a citizen nor an EEA national.

(3) The Secretary of State does not, as a result of sub-paragraph (1), have power to revoke an Islands deportation order.
(4) In any particular case, the Secretary of State may direct that paragraph (b), (c) or (d) of sub-paragraph (2) is not to apply in relation to the Islands deportation order.
(5) Nothing in this paragraph makes it unlawful for a person in respect of whom an Islands deportation order is in force in any of the Islands to enter the United Kingdom on his way from that island to a place outside the United Kingdom.
(6) "Islands deportation order" means an order made under the immigration laws of any of the Islands under which a person is, or has been, ordered to leave the island and forbidden to return.
(7) Subsections (9) and (10) to (12) of section 75 of The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 apply for the purposes of this section as they apply for the purposes of that section."'').
Page 146, line 39, at end insert—
("The House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (c. 24)
. In Part III of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (disqualifying offices)—

(a) omit—

"Adjudicator appointed for the purposes of the Immigration Act 1971"; and.

(b) at the appropriate places, insert—

"Adjudicator appointed for the purposes of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999"; and

"Asylum Support Adjudicator".

The Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 (e. 25)
. In Part III of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 (disqualifying offices)—

(a) omit

"Adjudicator appointed for the purposes of the Immigration Act 1971"; and.

(b) at the appropriate places, insert—

"Adjudicator appointed for the purposes of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999"; and

"Asylum Support Adjudicator.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 293 not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 294 to 307:
Page 146, line 44, leave out ("for an asylum-seeker")
Page 146, line 45, at end insert—
("The Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 198i (S.I 1981/155 (N.I. 2))
. In Schedule 1 to the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1931 (offences for which there is an additional penalty if committed when in possession of a firearm), after paragraph 4 insert—
"4A. An offence under paragraph 4 to Schedule 10 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (assaulting a detainee custody officer)." ").
Page 147, line 15, leave out from ("in") to ("to") in line 16 and insert ("order").
Page 148, line 2, leave out from ("in") to ("to") in line 3 and insert ("order").
Page 148, line 11, leave out from ("in") to ("to") in line 12 and insert ("order").
Page 148, line 27, leave out ("section 90") and insert (" Part VI").
Page 148, line 35, leave out ("section 90") and insert ("Part VI").
Page 149, line 30, at end insert—
("( ) In Schedule 11 (judges etc barred from legal practice), in the entry relating to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, omit "appointed under Schedule 5 to the Immigration Act 1971" and after that entry insert—
"Adjudicator for the purposes of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (other than Asylum Support Adjudicator)"").
Page 150, line 14, leave out (""Immigration Adjudicator"") and insert ("Adjudicator for the purposes of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (other than Asylum Support Adjudicator)"").
Page 150, line 14, at end insert—
("( ) In Schedule 5 (relevant offices in relation to the retirement provisions), for "Immigration Adjudicator" substitute insert "Adjudicator for the purposes of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (other than Asylum Support Adjudicator)".").
Page 150, line 21, at end insert—
("90A.—(1) Omit section 6 (protection of asylum claimants from deportation etc.).
(2) This paragraph is to be treated as having come into force on 26th July 1993.").
Page 150, line 28, leave out (", under paragraph 23 of Schedule 4 to that Act").
Page 151, line 5, at end insert—
("The Education Act 1996 (c. 56)
. In section 512(3) of the Education Act 1996 (requirement to provide school meals)—

(a) for the words from the beginning to "a", where it occurs for the second time, substitute

"(3) Subsection (3A) applies in relation to a pupil

(a) whose parents are in receipt of—

(i) income support;

(ii) an income-based jobseeker's allowance (payable under the Jobseekers Act 1995); or

(iii) support provided under Part VI of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999; or

(b) who is himself in receipt of income support or an income-based jobseeker's allowance.

(3A) A": and.

(b) in paragraph (a), for "him" substitute "the pupil".").

Page 152, line 3, at end insert—
(" . After section 7, insert—
"Pending appeals.
7A.—(1) For the purposes of this Act, an appeal to the Commission is to be treated as pending during the period beginning when notice of appeal is given and ending when the appeal is finally determined, withdrawn or abandoned.
(2) An appeal is not to be treated as finally determined while a further appeal may be brought.
(3) If a further appeal is brought, the original appeal is not to be treated as finally determined until the further appeal is determined, withdrawn or abandoned.
(4) A pending appeal to the Commission is to be treated as abandoned if the appellant leaves the United Kingdom.
(5) A pending appeal to the Commission is to be treated as abandoned if the appellant is granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom.
(6) But subsection (5) does not apply to an appeal brought under section 2(1) as a result of section 64(4) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.
(7) A pending appeal brought under section 2(1) as a result of section 56(3) of that Act is to be treated as abandoned if a deportation order is made against the appellant."").
Page 153, line 12, at end insert—
("Appeals under section 2A
3G.—(1) A person is not to be required to leave, or be removed from, the United Kingdom if an appeal under section 2A is pending against the decision on which that requirement or removal would otherwise be based.
(2) That does not prevent—

(a) directions for his removal being given during that period;

(b) a deportation order being made against him during that period.

(3) But no such direction or order is to have effect during that period."").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 14 [Transitional Provisions and Savings]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 308 to 312A:
Page 153, line 29, at end insert—
("Adjudicators and the Tribunal
.—(1) Each existing member of the Tribunal is to continue as a member of the Tribunal as if he had been duly appointed by the Lord Chancellor under Schedule 2.
(2) Each existing adjudicator is to continue as an adjudicator as if he had been duly appointed by the Lord Chancellor under Schedule 3.
(3) The terms and conditions for a person to whom subparagraph (1) or (2) applies remain those on which he held office immediately before the appropriate date.
(4) The provisions of Schedule 7 to the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993 (transitional provisions for retirement dates), so far as applicable in relation to an existing member or adjudicator immediately before the appropriate date, continue to have effect.
(5) The repeal by this Act of Schedule 5 to the 1971 Act (provisions with respect to adjudicators and the Tribunal) does not affect any entitlement which an existing member or adjudicator had immediately before the appropriate date as a result of a determination made under paragraph 3(1)(b) or 9(1)(b) of that Schedule.
(6) "The appropriate date" means—

(a) in relation to existing members of the Tribunal, the date on which section 50 comes into force; and

(b) in relation to existing adjudicators, the date on which section 51 comes into force.

(7) "Existing member" means a person who is a member of the Tribunal immediately before the appropriate date.
(8) "Existing adjudicator" means a person who is an adjudicator immediately before the appropriate date.").
Page 154, line 1, leave out paragraph 3.
Page 154, line 5, at end insert—
("Duties under National Assistance Act 1948
. Section 112 has effect, in relation to any time before section 111 is brought into force, as if section 111 came into force on the passing of this Act.
Duties under Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968
. Section 116(1) has effect, in relation to any time before section 111 is brought into force, as if section 111 came into force on the passing of this Act.").
Page 154, line 16, leave out ("prescribed under") and insert ("fixed by").
Page 154, line 20, at end insert—
("Assistance under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996
6.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order provide for any provision of Part VII of the Housing Act 1996 (homelessness) to have effect in relation to section 185(2) persons, during the interim period, with such modifications as may be specified in the order.
(2) An order under this paragraph may, in particular, include provision—

(a) for the referral of section 185(2) persons by one local housing authority to another by agreement between the authorities;

(b) as to the suitability of accommodation for such persons;

(c) as to out-of-area placements of such persons.

(3) "Interim period" means the period beginning with the passing of this Act and ending on the coming into force of the repeal of section 186 of the Act of 1996 (asylum-seekers and their dependants) by this Act (as to which see section 113(5)).
(4) "Local housing authority" has the same meaning as in the Act of 1996.
15) "Section 185(2) person" means a person who—

(a) is eligible for housing assistance under Part VII of the Act of 1996 as a result of regulations made under section 185(2) of that Act; and

(b) is not made ineligible by section 186 (or any other provision) of that Act.

(6) The fact that an order may be made under this paragraph only in respect of the interim period does not prevent it front containing provisions of a kind authorised under section 160(3)(a) which are to have continuing effect after the end of that period.").
Page 154, line 20, at end insert—
("Provision of support
.—(1) The Secretary of State may, by directions given to a local authority to whom Schedule 8 applies, require the authority to treat the interim period fixed for the purposes of that Schedule as coming to an end—

(a) for specified purposes,

(b) in relation to a specified area or locality, or

(c) in relation to persons of a specified description, on such earlier day as may be specified.

(2) The Secretary of State may, by directions given to an authority to whom any provision amended by section 116 or 117 applies, provide for specified descriptions of person to be treated—
1284

(a) for specified purposes. or

(b) in relation to a specified area or locality,

as being persons to whom section III applies during such period as may be specified.
(3) Directions given under this paragraph may—

(a) make such consequential, supplemental or transitional provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate; and

(b) make different provision for different cases or descriptions of case.

(4) "Specified" means specified in the directions.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 15 [Repeals]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 313 to 315:

Page 155, line 55, at end insert—

("1975 c. 24

The House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975.

In Schedule 1, in Part III, "Adjudicator appointed for the purposes of the Immigration Act 1971".

1975 c. 25.

The Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975.

In Schedule 1, in Part 111, "Adjudicator appointed for the purposes of the Immigration Act 1971".")

Page 156, line 6, at end insert—

("1990 c. 41.

The Courts and Legal Services Act 1990.

In Schedule 10, paragraph 34.

In Schedule 11, in the entry relating to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, "appointed under Schedule 5 to the Immigration Act 1971".")

Page 156, line 18, column 3, at end insert—

("Section 6.")

On Question, amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes before two o'clock.