Immigration and Asylum Bill

HL Deb 20 October 1999 vol 605 cc1193-284

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 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 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.

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.

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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 moved Amendment No. 126:

Page 132, leave out line 14 and insert ("eligible persons. ( )"Eligible persons" means—

1. (a) asylum-seekers, or
2. (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 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 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.

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—

1. (a) for local authorities generally,
2. (b) for prescribed descriptions of local authority, or
3. (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 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

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

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

1. (a) as to the level of support that is to be provided;
2. (b) for support to he provided subject to conditions;
3. (c) requiring any such conditions to be set out in writing;
4. (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—

1. (a) are to have regard to such matters as may be prescribed;
2. (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—

1. (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;
2. (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;
3. (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—

1. (a) for local authorities generally,
2. (b) for prescribed descriptions of local authority, or
3. (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—

1. (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
2. (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—

1. (a) to a prescribed local authority;
2. (b) to local authorities of a prescribed description; or
3. (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 moved Amendment No. 145A:

Page 133, line 13, leave out paragraphs 12 and 13 and insert— (". "The interim period" means the period—

1. (a) beginning on such day as may be prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph; and
2. (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 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 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—

1. (a) subsection (1)(a);
2. (b) subsection (1)(b);
3. (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 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 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.

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 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 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.

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, 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 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—

1. (a) provide services outside their area,
2. (b) provide services jointly with one or more bodies who are not local authorities;
3. (c) form a company for the purpose of providing services;
4. (d) tender for contracts (whether alone or with any other person).").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 97 [Reception zones]:

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—

1. (a) is not appropriate for the accommodation of persons supported under this Part, but
2. (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—

1. (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;
2. (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—

1. (a) requiring a dispute to be resolved in accordance with the dispute resolution procedure;
2. (b) requiring the parties to a dispute to comply with obligations imposed on them by the procedure; and
3. (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 moved Amendment No. 170:

Page 66, line 1, after ("zone") insert (", or

1. (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 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 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 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 moved Amendments Nos. 172 to 175:

Page 66, line 26, at end insert ("; or

1. (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 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—

1. (a) local authority,
2. (b) local authority association, or
1223
3. (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)—

1. "determined" means determined in accordance with regulations made by virtue of subsection (8)(a) of section 97, and
2. "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—

1. (a) the Executive; or
2. (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 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 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". 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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". 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 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 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 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. (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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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—

1. (a) section 17 of the Children Act 1989 (local authority support for children and their families);
2. (b) section 22 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (equivalent provision for Scotland): and
3. (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 ("—

1. (a) in relation to Northern Ireland, the authority within whose area the withdrawn accommodation was provided;
2. (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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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—

1. (a) if he is a constable, by a person designated for the purpose by the chief constable of his police force;
2. (b) if he is a person mentioned in subsection (5)(b) or (e), by a chief immigration officer;
3. (c) if he is a prison officer, by a person designated for the purpose by the governor of the prison;
4. (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 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—

1. (a) such period as the Secretary of State may specify by order;
2. (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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 moved Amendment No. 236:

Page 101, line 7, leave out from ("rules") to end of line 12 and insert ("must include provision—

1. (a) as to the making of visits to the centre by members of the Visiting Committee;
2. (b) for the hearing of complaints made by persons detained in the centre;
3. (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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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—

1. (a) rules made under section 47 of the Prison Act 1952;
2. (b) rules made under section 19 of the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989;
3. (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 moved Amendment No. 265:

Page 103, line 32, after ("or") insert ("certified").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 moved Amendment No. 270:

Page 108, line 25, after ("92(3),") insert— ("( ) section 139(15),").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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—

1. (a) section (Accommodation centres for those temporarily admitted or released from detention);
2. (b) section 7;
3. (c) section (Protection of claimants from removal or deportation);
4. (d) section (Charges: travel documents);
5. (e) section (Defences based on Article 31 of the Refugee Convention);
6. (f) section 89;
7. (g) section 90(12);
8. (h) sections 101 to 105;
9. (i) section 106(1), (1A) and (4) (so far as relating to subsections (1) and (1A));
10. (j) section 107;
11. (k) section 120;
12. (l) section 136;
13. (m) section 141;
14. (n) section 142(1);
15. (o) section 160 to 162;
16. (p) this section;
17. (q) Schedule 8;
18. (r) paragraphs 57(2), 64, 67, 68, 70, 71, 76, 77 and 90A of Schedule 13;
19. (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 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 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 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 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.

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 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)—

1. (a) after "arrangements for" insert "or in connection with"; and
2. (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)—

1. (a) for "this Act" substitute "the Immigration Acts"; and
2. (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)—

1. (a) for first "this Act" substitute "the Immigration Acts"; and
2. (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 ("—

1. ( ) in relation to an appeal to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, in accordance with section 7A of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997;
2. ( ) in any other case,").

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

1. (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 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—

1. (a) prohibiting residence in a particular description of accommodation;
2. (b) prohibiting residence in one or more particular areas;
3. (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;
4. (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 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—

1. (a) a British citizen;
2. (b) an EEA national;
3. (c) a member of the family of an EEA national; or
4. (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 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)—

1. (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

1. (a) whose parents are in receipt of—
1. (i) income support;
2. (ii) an income-based jobseeker's allowance (payable under the Jobseekers Act 1995); or
3. (iii) support provided under Part VI of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999; or
2. (b) who is himself in receipt of income support or an income-based jobseeker's allowance.

(3A) A": and.

1. (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—

1. (a) directions for his removal being given during that period;
2. (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 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—

1. (a) in relation to existing members of the Tribunal, the date on which section 50 comes into force; and
2. (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—

1. (a) for the referral of section 185(2) persons by one local housing authority to another by agreement between the authorities;
2. (b) as to the suitability of accommodation for such persons;
3. (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—

1. (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
2. (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—

1. (a) for specified purposes,
2. (b) in relation to a specified area or locality, or
3. (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—

1. (a) for specified purposes. or
2. (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—

1. (a) make such consequential, supplemental or transitional provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate; and
2. (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 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.