Sitting of 28 July 1999

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

Lord Watson of Richmond
Alan John Watson, Esquire, CBE, having been created Baron Watson of Richmond, of Richmond in the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Jenkins of Hillhead and the Lord Steel of Aikwood.
Lord King of West Bromwich
Tarsem King, Esquire, having been created Baron King of West Bromwich, of West Bromwich in the County of West Midlands, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Archer of Sandwell and the Lord Tomlinson.

Heritage Vehicles
2.50 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Montagu of Beaulieu asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will seek ways to exclude historic road and rail vehicles from the proposed pressure equipment regulations, shortly to be introduced, so as not to add regulatory burdens to this part of the national transport heritage.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, the regulations do not affect any of the day-to-day work of operating, servicing and repairing heritage vehicles. They set out the essential safety requirements which new items of pressure equipment or those imported from outside the Community will need to meet from May 2002. They do not apply where someone is manufacturing or importing for his own use other than in the course of business. Provided these essential safety requirements are met, historic designs and methods of construction could continue to be used as there is no requirement to use state of the art designs.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Is he aware that it will come as a considerable relief to many organisations? Will he confirm that purpose-made replacement parts and associated fittings for historic vehicles will not be covered by the regulations? In view of the widespread concern and fears about the regulations, will he examine the validity of, and perhaps the necessity for, some of
1520
the regulations in terms of the directive? Perhaps he would be good enough to chair a conference of all the interested parties to discuss the implications.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as regards replacement parts, the regulations cover only the boiler itself. If a new boiler is required, that part must conform with the regulations. I believe that that only becomes a problem around once every 40 years; so perhaps it is not significant. A meeting will take place on 9th August with officials, the heritage railways, the National Traction Engine Trust and model engineers. I hope that the meeting will clear up any misunderstandings about the regulations. If it does not, I shall be happy to hold any necessary discussions.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are 80 heritage railways., mainly in Wales and the north of England, manned mostly by volunteers? Those areas desperately need the interest created by tourism, but they are concerned that the new regulations will impose a charge of £115 for Her Majesty's railway inspector to come and inspect them. I do not know whether that refers to the same regulation or another one issued at the same time. The railway operators are concerned that the cost of the charge might be such as to prevent their carrying out necessary safety work. Is there some way in which they could be exempted from the charges? Will the Minister examine the matter?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, there is a good deal of confusion about the issue. There will be no change whatever as regards regular inspection of the operation of such vehicles. It will continue to be carried out by the Health and Safety Executive. The regulations essentially apply to the manufacturers; it is they who will need certification of the design of the boiler before use. There is no change so far as operation and maintenance is concerned.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, my noble friend's answers to the two previous questions have been helpful. He says that the new regulations apply only to boilers and pressure vessels. However, I remain concerned that the heritage business, if we may call it that, which has around 3,000 traction engines and 1,000 railway locomotives, says that the cost of conforming to the new regulations for a replacement boiler will rise tenfold. Can my noble friend devise a method for the main organisations to carry out their own assessments? I am sure that they are technically experienced, and it would save their having to spend 10 times as much as they do at present for apparently no improvement in safety. I suggest to the Minister that this has more to do with bureaucracy than with safety.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I repeat that this concerns the boiler industry and its basic safety standards. Perhaps I may put the issue into context. We are discussing an industry of 2,000 manufacturers with businesses worth around £3.5 billion and employing some 60,000 people. The regulations have been

1521
designed very much with this sector of the economy in mind and are greatly welcomed by it as removing significant barriers to trade. Certification concerns the boilers themselves. However, it is open to heritage bodies to become certified bodies to carry out the certification process.
The DTI has always been concerned about safety—ever since an early President of the Board of Trade was killed by the "Rocket" engine. I mention that because obviously we are debating the heritage industry. In 1830 William Huskisson was killed by an early version of the "Rocket". However, I do not believe that we are unduly concerned with safety in this important area.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, given what happened in 1830, how many accidents have occurred recently? Is it true that there have been no explosions at all involving boilers on historic traction engines? If that is the case, what is the point of the regulations?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I shall make a simple point. The reason why we do not have accidents in this area is that we have very good regulations.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is it not a fact that the heritage railways will now be charged for any health and safety inspection by HM railways inspectors? Am I correct in saying that that inspection charge is £115?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as far as I know, there is no change as regards the Health and Safety Executive stemming from these regulations which, I repeat, essentially concern the boiler manufacturers. However, I shall check whether there has been any change.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, the Minister says that the reason there have been no accidents is that the regulations are excellent. If that is the case, why are new ones required?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the regulations we are discussing are the pressure equipment regulations of 1999 implementing the European Community pressure equipment directive.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I find it strange to be lecturing those on the Benches opposite about the value of free trade and the removal of trade barriers. As I pointed out, the boiler industry is extremely significant, with £3.5 billion worth of business and employing 60,000 people. The industry greatly welcomes the regulations because they remove barriers to trade in Europe and open up very significant markets. If that is a matter of no interest to Members opposite, then I am deeply surprised.

British Films
2.57 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to improve the distribution of British films.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, British films are under-represented in the market-place largely because of the separation of production from the distribution process, which is dominated by large American companies. Following the Film Policy Review, the Government are creating a powerful new film council which will develop a comprehensive strategy to help to address this weakness, including providing direct support for distribution and encouraging industry efforts to improve the development and marketing of British films.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful for the general sense of the Minister's words, and I am sure those outside the House will welcome it. Bearing in mind that the government-sponsored Film Policy Review Group's report, A Bigger Picture, drew attention to the fact that in this country the film industry is production-led and fragmented, whereas in America, with which it competes, the business is distribution-led, is the Minister aware that around 70 per cent of films made in Britain are never distributed here at all? American films have 10 times more chance than those made in this country of going on to the British circuit. In those circumstances, I simply say to the Minister that what he has announced will be welcome, and can we have his assurance that it will be pursued with vigour?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there are two reasons why my noble friend's analysis is correct. First, as he pointed out, in the United States there is vertical integration in production, distribution and indeed in exhibition. That means that it is possible for the largely American producers to exert greater influence on exhibitors than is possible for British producers. Secondly, an enormous amount of money is spent by the American film industry on pre-launch publicity. That gives people the idea that it is desirable to see those films on which a great deal of promotion money has been spent. That is simply not available to many British film producers and distributors.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the system of distribution of films in this country is little short of a scandal as, indeed, is recognised by the Government's Film Policy Review Group? Why have the Government not implemented their key proposal for an all-industry fund to support British film distribution? If I understood my noble friend correctly, he said that that is included in what might be described as "the package" he has reported today. Can he confirm that only 30 per cent of British films are shown nation-wide? We pride ourselves on making some of the best films in the world and do not give people an opportunity to see them.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as I said in response to my noble friend Lord Graham, his analysis

1523
of the situation is correct. As regards the all-industry fund, that always had to be a voluntary fund. It was based on the idea of a levy of 0.5 per cent of film-related revenues to create a fund of some £20 million to assist in the better development of films and generic marketing. Unfortunately, a cost/benefit analysis was carried out which did not convince those who would have to contribute to the fund that they should do so, and it did not work. However, we shall try again.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, can the Minister tell us exactly what is a "British film"? Is it a film made in Britain, a film financed with British finance, a film made using British crew or actors, or a combination of all of those?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, had the noble Viscount been present in the House last Friday, he would have heard a detailed explanation of the definition of "British film" in an order which I moved, which was agreed with unanimous support from all political parties. To simplify greatly, under the new definition a "British film" will be one in which 70 per cent of the production budget has been spent in this country.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, perhaps I may be permitted to pursue the point raised by my noble friend. I believe he asked a proper question with regard to a wide definition of the phrase "British film". Overall, the Minister is correct to say that last Friday the House debated a statutory instrument, to which I gave my support, which defined "British film" for tax relief purposes. Can the Minister answer the wider aspect of my noble friend's question: what is a culturally British film? The noble Lord, Lord Putnam, asked the Government for such a definition and has not yet received one.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government are in the business of administration rather than that of imposing cultural standards or criteria. I am tempted to say that if we could get away with it, good films containing any British element should be classed as "British films". However, it is not for the Government to make cultural judgments of that kind.
The Earl of Drogheda: My Lords, is there some way in which the Government could do more to encourage independent cinemas, in London, for example? Is the Minister aware that although there are about 200 screens in London, only 40 films are shown on those screens at any one time, of which 90 screens are filled by a mere six films?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as a filmgoer, I share the frustration expressed by the noble Earl. There are some marvellous independent cinemas, especially in London and some of our larger cities. It is true that they have a very hard time. It is difficult to see how we could provide direct subsidy to them. However,
1524
it must be said that the French seem to find a way of subsidising distributions directly, particularly in rural areas. Perhaps we should copy them.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, as my noble friend said, the Films (Modification of the Definition of "British Film") Order 1999 was debated last week. I am a little confused as to whether its provisions will help or hinder distribution. Can my noble friend comment on that?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, those most concerned with making British films are convinced that the new order is a significant advance. The previous definition contained a number of anomalies; for example, the film, "Little Voice", which was made. in Scarborough with British actors such as Jane Horrocks and Michael Caine, did not count as a British film under the old definition; it would now.

Radioactive Waste
3.5 p.m.
Lord Tombs Lord Tombs asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect to publish their response to the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on The Management of Nuclear Waste (HL Paper 41), published on 24th March.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the Government will publish a response shortly. However, I can indicate that the Government agree with the Select Committee that there is a need for widespread consultation before a final decision is reached on the most appropriate option for the management of radioactive waste. We shall want to study the results of a consultation exercise, which we intend to launch early next year, before coming to a final view.
Lord Tombs: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. The response has been imminent for about three months, so any movement is welcome. Perhaps I may remind the Minister that the report deals not only with consultation but with what is described as a fragmented nuclear waste disposal policy, and contains a number of substantial recommendations other than those for public consultation, important though they are. Among them are the classification of particular wastes, including plutonium, and the increased involvement of the Environment Agency. Can the Minister use his influence to ensure that the response, when it finally arrives, is as purposeful and constructive as the importance of the topic requires?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I fully concur that this is an important subject. It is for that reason that we wish to discuss widely with users and operators in the nuclear industry the conclusions of the Select Committee. I assure the noble Lord that the views of his committee

1525
will be taken very seriously. Both the institutional aspects and operational aspects will meet with a positive government response.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that our policy on the management of all nuclear waste should be one that is acceptable to the public? We must not again waste £450 million, as was the case with Nirex, without finding the right solution. Would he also consider not closing all our options concerning plutonium? One tonne of plutonium is the energy equivalent of 2 million tonnes of coal.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as regards the first point raised by my noble friend, it is clear that a substantial amount of time and resources were expended by Nirex on looking at locations. Nirex is continuing with generic research concerned with deep disposal of radioactive waste. However, it is not currently engaged on site selection activities. If geological disposal is the chosen management option, the process of site selection should, from there on, be as open as possible. As pointed out by my noble friend, the significance of plutonium as an energy source is important. However, whatever the decisions on the future of nuclear energy, some plutonium will be waste and therefore has to be covered in the waste management regime.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, does the noble Lord the Minister agree that the goodwill and support of the West Cumbrian community is based on the continued activities at Sellafield and in particular the continuation of the reprocessing business, which is so important to local earnings and to BNFL's prosperity?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister recently made clear our continuous support to the operation of THORP which brings in £12 billion and the operation in West Cumbria, which employs 6,000 or 7,000 skilled workers. It is therefore important economically, as well as technically, that that technology is maintained.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the problems the nuclear industry faces is the management of nuclear waste, and that therefore it is vital that the question be properly addressed? Does he further agree that if we do not continue with power generated by nuclear means and revert to using fossil fuels, the Government will have absolutely no chance of meeting their Kyoto targets on fossil fuel gases?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not completely share that conclusion. The Government continue to see the generation of electricity by nuclear means in the existing power stations as a substantial contribution to meeting our energy needs. As the noble Lord will know, about 25 per cent of our electricity is currently generated by nuclear sources. The noble Lord will also know that the last government took a decision, which we have
1526
continued to follow, that there is no immediate need to commission new nuclear power stations. That remains the position.

Secretary of State for Scotland: Official Residence
3.10 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman Viscount Bridgeman asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made in identifying an official residence in Edinburgh for the Secretary of State for Scotland.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel): My Lords, it is not, nor has it been, the intention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to have an official residence, either in Edinburgh or elsewhere.
Bute House in Edinburgh was an official residence of the Secretary of State for Scotland until 1st July, when it was passed to the First Minister.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I welcome the news that the Government have given up the grandiose idea that the Secretary of State should have an official residence in Edinburgh. Can the Government go further and indicate what other signs of empire-building—more officials and new logos and letterheads—will also be dropped?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, it is not a matter of dropping, because it was never taken up in the first place; there was never any intention that the Secretary of State for Scotland should have a new official residence in Scotland. However, it must remain the case—and this cannot be a surprise to the noble Viscount—that clearly the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Scottish Office will need office accommodation in Scotland. Again, it would be hardly surprising if the location turns out to be Edinburgh.
Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the Secretary of State for Scotland has an important role to play in representing the Scottish people at the Westminster Parliament; that it is necessary in that context that he has proper offices and staff in Scotland, so that the views of the Scottish people can be collected on matters reserved to this Parliament, and properly represented in this Parliament; and that that is not helped by the kind of foolish Question we have had this afternoon from the noble Viscount?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I very much welcome my noble friend's comments. Indeed, I would go further and say that it is not just the Secretary of State for Scotland who has an important role to play, but all his Ministers.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, before the recent change of use of Bute House, did the Government

1527
consult the Bute family or the successor group of the Scottish businesses which furnished and equipped Bute House to be the residence of the Secretary of State for Scotland, with no taxpayers' money involved? Is the noble Lord aware that as such it was opened in 1970, when I was the first Secretary of State to occupy it, and that it was especially useful in my case, because my home is nearly 200 miles north of Edinburgh?
Lord Sewel: Yes, my Lords, I take all those points. I am happy to say that on occasions, as a Minister in the Scottish Office, I personally have been able to use the lodgings of Bute House. I appreciate very much the facilities made available there through the generosity of others. I am sure that it is the view of all past Scottish Office Ministers that Bute House has made a major contribution to the smooth running and functioning of the office of Secretary of State.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, did the Government consult the Bute family or the successor group of all those Scottish industries which spent six years preparing the house for occupation by the Secretary of State?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I am not aware of the detailed consultations that were entered into, but my memory is that Bute House is run under trust by trustees. I would assume that those trustees—if I am not accurate in this I shall write to the noble Lord—were consulted and informed.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that Bute House was and remains the only official residence in Scotland for anyone in the Executive or Parliament, contrary to all the press reports?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I thought that that was basically what I had said in my first Answer, but I am more than happy to confirm it.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that his Answer will be of considerable interest to the Scottish Parliament and its Members, of whom I am one, who will have a direct interest in the response that he has given? Will he confirm that there will be no unnecessary extra expenditure, which could come out of the Scottish block grant, and that it would make good sense and good practice for the Secretary of State for Scotland and Scotland's First Minister, if they are working very closely together, to share the same premises and the same offices?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I am not convinced that it would be good practice for the Secretary of State for Scotland and the First Minister to share the same offices. There is some advantage in having distinct and separate offices for those two significant office holders. One is, of course, a member of the Government of the United Kingdom and the other is a member of the Scottish Executive. But I give the assurance that there will be no
1528
unnecessary expenditure. I could perhaps point out that the cost of the Secretary of State's continuing operations in Scotland is envisaged to be of the order of £5 million a year. That represents 0.03 per cent of the Scottish block grant, which runs at approximately £15 billion. So let us keep things in proportion.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I should like to be clear in my own mind. Is the Minister saying that all the press reports that the Secretary of State was house-hunting in the area of Melville Crescent are totally wrong? If that is the case, I welcome it. His small number of civil servants could be housed in one of the existing government offices in Scotland. Would it not also be possible, if the Secretary of State needs to entertain people, for him to share the excellent facilities of Bute House with the First Minister, or are the press reports of bad blood such that they will not be able to share the same residence?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I am certainly not rising to that one.
I assure the House that there will be no unnecessary extra expenditure. It is the belief of the Secretary of State and of the Government that it is right and proper that the Secretary of State for Scotland should have separate offices in Scotland, most likely in Edinburgh. I think the press reports have got a little bit garbled along the way, because there is certainly no intention of having a separate official residence; but there will be working offices.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in his last answer the Minister used the words "extra expenditure". Does he mean "extra" to the block grant or "extra" in some other way?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I was very carefully using the words of the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk of Douglas, who asked me to confirm that there would be no extra expenditure; I am more than delighted to do that. Perhaps I may make it absolutely cleat that any costs resulting from the provision of office accommodation in Scotland for the Secretary of State for Scotland will be a charge on the Scottish block grant. There will be no additional source to meet such expenditure.

Business of the House: Debate, 29th July
3.18 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 38 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with tomorrow to allow the Motion relating to financial assistance to opposition parties to be taken before the Committee stage of the Greater London Authority Bill.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill
3.19 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 6,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 7 to 18,

Schedule 2,

Clause 19,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 20 and 21,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 22 to 32,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 33 to 47,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 48 to 55,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 56 to 66,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 67 to 70,

Schedules 9 and 10,

Clauses 71 to 77,

Schedule 11,

Clauses 78 to 80,

Schedule 12,

Clauses 81 to 83,

Schedule 13,

Clauses 84 to 86.—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Immigration and Asylum Bill
3.20 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 92 [Reception zones]:
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton)The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton) moved Amendment No. 171A:
Page 60, line 1, leave out ("an area") insert ("as reception zones—
(a) areas in England and Wales").
The noble and learned Lord said: Government Amendments Nos. 171C, 171D and 172A—in which I am surprised Members of this House do not appear to be interested—and Amendment No. 172 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, address the same point; namely, the
1530
recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee that the power to make regulations under Clause 92(8) as to the management of property that is subject to a direction should only be exercised following consultation with local authorities.
We accept the wisdom of the committee's recommendation. We hope never to have to use the power to direct; but if we do, there need to be proper safeguards for the interest of the landlord. Regulations under Clause 92(8) will provide for this. In making regulations generally we always aim to consult those affected in advance; certainly we would wish to do so in this case and I am happy to make this a requirement on the face of the Bill. I invite the Committee to endorse the government amendments rather than Amendment No. 172.
Amendment No. 171BA seeks to require the Home Secretary to consult voluntary organisations before designating a reception zone. We are very conscious of the importance of the voluntary sector in the development of our arrangements for the dispersal of asylum seekers to cluster areas. We are currently discussing with the voluntary sector the way in which it might provide support for asylum seekers through one-stop shops in the regions, and these one-stop shops would provide outreach support in any area that might be designated a reception zone.
The first consideration in deciding whether to designate a reception zone will clearly need to be the availability of suitable housing. But we shall also be taking account of the capacity of an area to absorb asylum seekers successfully, and this will include an assessment of the role that the voluntary sector might be able to play. So we shall indeed be consulting the voluntary sector about our plans should we need to use the power to designate reception zones. It is right and proper that there should be a statutory requirement to consult local authorities before designating a reception zone, since they are directly affected. But I suggest that, given the assurance that we will be taking account of the voluntary sector in our decisions on reception zones, we do not need a formal duty to consult them. I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, not to press the amendment.
Amendments Nos. 171A and 171B pick up a lacuna in the current drafting of Clause 92. Generally, in Great Britain, if we need to use the power to direct a public body to make social housing available, it will be a local authority to whom we issue the direction. But in Northern Ireland such housing is held by the Housing Executive; so the power of direction must be capable of being exercised towards that body. As a result of the changes to Clause 92 it has been necessary to put forward Amendments Nos. 180D and 180E which alter references in Clause 101 from "an authority" to "a body" and thus cover the Housing Executive as well as local authorities. I should add that we have no plans to use the power in respect of the executive. Indeed, current thinking is that we shall not be locating asylum seekers in the Province other than those who arrive there

1531
of their own accord. However, to have powers capable of uniform exercise across the United Kingdom we need these provisions. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I apologise to the Minister. I did not catch some of his earlier sentences because noble Lords were moving around the Chamber. Did he say—as I believe he did—that Amendment No. 172 was in accordance with the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee and is therefore acceptable to the Government?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: It was the surprising lack of interest in these amendments which deafened the noble Lord to my remarks. I am proposing Amendments Nos. 171C, 171D and 172A to deal with the point made by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. I do so in preference to Amendment No. 172, which would require us to consult the authorities affected by direction each and every time we made a direction. That would be too time consuming and make it difficult for the power of direction—it is a power of last resort for use only where an authority declines to co-operate—to operate effectively. We are therefore trying to deal with it in our amendments rather than in the way proposed by the noble Lord.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I shall study what the Minister said. My first reaction is that Amendments Nos. 171C arid 171D do not take up the point of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. In paragraph 23 of its report it specifically suggests:
"The House may wish to consider whether the Bill should be amended to place a statutory obligation on the Secretary of State to consult local authorities before making regulations under clause 92(8), as is already the case with orders under Clause 92(1)".
As I understand it—though I may be wrong—the Government's amendments adjust the provisions for consultation on Clause 92(1) but do not insert a duty to consult on the regulations as to how the reception areas are to be managed. Consultation on how they are to be managed and the regulations in that regard, as the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee suggested, is also important, as well as consultation before designating zones.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: Before the Minister replies, so that we can deal with this whole matter together, perhaps I may say that I am satisfied that his amendment meets the point in Amendment No. 171BA. In fact, I believe our amendments were tabled almost at the same time. I would not have tabled mine had I known what the Government's amendment contained. However, I share the anxiety of the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, that what is proposed does not meet the point about the regulations made under the clause.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The relevant amendment is Amendment No. 172A. It says,
"Before designating a reception zone in Great Britain, the Secretary of State must consult such local authorities, local authority associations and other persons as he thinks appropriate".
1532
That is in contradistinction to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, which states that, before designating a reception zone, the consultation must be with the local authority concerned. So there is a difference between the two.
We sought to address the concerns of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. We sought to do so in a slightly less prescriptive way than is proposed in Amendment No. 172 with a view to ensuring that we do not have to consult the local authority each and every time we make a direction. That would be too time-consuming and would make it difficult to use the power of direction effectively. That is the difference between us. I hope that makes it clear.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am grateful for that further explanation which we shall obviously study carefully.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 171B:
Page 60, line 2, leave out ("as a reception zone") and insert—
("(b) areas in Scotland consisting of the areas of one or more local authorities;
(c) Northern Ireland.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 171BA not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendments Nos. 171C and 171D:
Page 60, line 3, leave out subsection (2).
Page 60, line 9, leave out ("within a reception zone").
The noble and learned Lord said: With the leave of the Committee I shall move Amendments Nos. 171C and 171D en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 172 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 172A:
Page 60, line 41, at end insert—
("() Before designating a reception zone in Great Britain, the Secretary of State must consult such local authorities, local authority associations and other persons as he thinks appropriate.
() Before designating Northern Ireland as a reception zone, the Secretary of State must consult the Executive and such other persons as he thinks appropriate.
() Before making regulations under subsection (8) which extend only to Northern Ireland, the Secretary of State must consult the Executive and such other persons as he thinks appropriate.
() Before making any other regulations under subsection (8), the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) such local authorities, local authority associations and other persons as he thinks appropriate; and

(b) if the regulations extend to Northern Ireland, the Executive.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 92, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 93 agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Asylum Support Adjudicators]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 173 and 174:
Page 126, line 40, leave out sub-paragraph (3).
Page 127, line 5, leave out (", with the approval of the Treasury,").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I shall move Amendments Nos. 173 and 174 en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.
3.30 p.m.
Clause 94 [Appeals]:
Lord Alton of Liverpool Lord Alton of Liverpool moved Amendment No. 175:
Page 61, line 10, at end insert—
("() If the Secretary of State provides or offers to provide support which the applicant contends is not adequate or suitable for his needs or for the needs of his dependants, if any, or for both, the applicant may appeal to an adjudicator.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 175 takes us back to the debates which we held in Committee last week on Amendment Nos. 161 and 164, which discussed the wording in the legislation dealing with housing issues, particularly concerning the position of the homeless and whether the word "suitable" or "adequate" should appear in the legislation.
It was the decision of the Committee to stand by the wording as printed in the Bill. That being so, it is even more important, therefore, to provide some opportunity for appellants who feel that they have not been provided with accommodation suitable for them as a family.
I gave illustrations last week of how a family might be placed on a sink estate on the outskirts of a city; how they might be in an area which is particularly hostile to immigrants, asylum seekers or refugees; and of how they might be placed in accommodation which in other circumstances would be difficult to let and not regarded as suitable for our own nationals. In those circumstances, I believe that it would be proper that if applicants feel aggrieved, they should have some opportunity to appeal. Therefore, this amendment provides for a right of appeal against the offer of inadequate or unsuitable support.
Having created a new tribunal and paid for administration by a new set of adjudicators, it seems to me difficult to understand why they have not been given the opportunity to adjudicate also on questions such as I have just described. There will be some opportunity of appeal in the Crown Office list through the hearing of judicial reviews. However, I wonder whether that is the most satisfactory way of dealing with these questions.
I took the opportunity to look at the debate in another place. In the Special Standing Committee on 11th May 1999, when considering Clause 84 dealing with appeals, the Minister of State in another place, Mr Mike O'Brien, said that he estimated that there might be as many as 20,000 such appeals rather than the 2,000 per year at present. He put that forward as one of the reasons why he would be against this sort of amendment.
Incidentally, he said that he hoped that this could be dealt with by way of a formal internal mechanism rather than a system of appeal.
When the Minister replies, will he state the basis on which he estimates that there could be as many as 20,000 appeals and how that figure has been arrived at? It seems to me to have been plucked from thin air. Will he also say whether it has been possible to come up with the more informal, internal mechanism that was described to the Special Standing Committee? As an estimate has been put on the number of appeals that such an amendment may produce, has any estimate been put on the number of judicial reviews that may be triggered as a result of leaving the legislation as it currently stands?
I believe that there is a very good case for using this particular group of adjudicators, through the asylum support system, to look at such questions, not least because they will be dealing with refusal, which will give them the opportunity to look at asylum seekers in the round. Dealing only with refusals gives them a very narrow remit. If we are to go to the expense of setting up this system anyway, why not extend it to allow them to deal also with this range of questions? I believe, incidentally, that that will also ensure that the quality of the package with which they are dealing will also be improved. It will expose adjudicators to the whole picture.
In those circumstances, instead of having a rather disparate system, which is what we will otherwise be left with, I hope that the Government will accept that this amendment is a genuine attempt to try to improve the arrangements. It is at this stage a probing amendment. I hope that the Minister will be able to give a response to those points. I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I support the amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, and should like to raise a few additional points.
Our prime concern is the issue of the adequacy and suitability of accommodation for particular groups of people. I shall say a word about why our concerns arise. Our belief is that adjudicators would be more capable and more experienced in dealing with the kind of cases that may come before them than would probably be the case in the internal review mechanism, on which I understand that the Home Office is likely to rely.
Two examples spring to mind. One concerns people who have been tortured. According to the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture, people who have been tortured often suffer from mental illness. This may take the form of sleeplessness, nightmares, attacks of sudden fear and apprehension. The type of accommodation which would be perfectly adequate for the great majority of asylum seekers simply would not be adequate for some members of that group. It seems to us that it is unlikely that an entirely internal procedure, which would not carry within it people with specific understanding and experience of dealing with

1535
victims of torture, would sufficiently weigh in the balance the particular concerns that arise in such cases. The Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture has put forward the example of a woman who, after torture, came to this country. She was blind and largely deaf. She clearly could not easily be accommodated in private accommodation or in accommodation with other people from completely different backgrounds. It also gave the example of a woman who became epileptic in the grand mal phase as a result of the torture that she had undergone.
Therefore, the first group on whose behalf I wish to advance a claim has a very special need for accommodation which is not only adequate but also suitable. The claims put forward by this group would therefore best be served by experienced adjudicators who have dealt with many cases of asylum seekers.
The second group about whom we are particularly concerned comprises people who fall within the category of having suffered from sexual violence and rape. My noble friend will say something more about this. We are all very much aware that in Bosnia, and to some extent in Kosovo, rape became an instrument of warfare. Women, and a few men, who fall into this category are particularly prone to be very frightened at the presence around them of people whom they fear might sexually abuse them. Therefore, they comprise a group with a very special need for either accommodation shared with people who have been through a similar experience or, in certain instances, single accommodation.
We therefore believe that the normal process of simply going through an internal appeal to Home Office officers who have no special experience in these fields, and who do not in any event normally deal with appellants seeking accommodation, is inappropriate. We believe that such people would more appropriately be dealt with by adjudicators who might begin to build up some expertise in the area.
With regard to the issue raised by Mr Michael O'Brien in another place, it seems to us that any increase in the number of appeals will depend on how rapidly appeals are dealt with and what guidelines are set out, rather than on any rush of appeals to judicial review, which in any case would be likely if the cases do not go to an adjudicator.
On those three grounds—the special nature of some asylum seekers (with particular reference to those who are victims of torture or victims of sexual violence and rape); the suitability of those who consider the appeals that are made; and the issue of trying to avoid a flow of appeals to judicial review, which is a slow and lengthy process—we very strongly commend this amendment to the House.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I support the amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. Simplicity is something which is owed to asylum seekers, wherever possible, in this Bill. It is clearly not rational or logical that the Crown Office should be responsible for deciding whether support will be given. The adjudicators should be responsible for the level of support. The noble Baroness,
1536
Lady Williams of Crosby, has made the point that adjudicators are much more likely to have more effective experience in this field.
A further point is the whole question of suitability of accommodation. We must face the fact that accommodation provided by local authorities varies extremely widely. Any protection possible in that respect must be given.
Lord Dholakia: I also support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alton. The noble Lord and my noble friend have made the case on specific issues likely to affect asylum seekers, particularly victims of torture and rape victims. I want to bring in the factor of people who suffer mental illness, or cases where the pressure is such that they are affected by mental situations.
We are not discussing asylum seekers who are refused support, but the actual level of support. I do not want to prolong the argument as the case has been ably made by the noble Lord. I am bothered about the extent to which the Minister in the other place talked about 20,000 cases. How did he reach that figure? Is there any basis for coming to that conclusion? More important, if the Minister accepts that the only way to deal with the situation is not to create an appeal mechanism but to establish a formal internal mechanism of review, could we have some assurance that the workings of that review body will be published and that there will be guidelines available?
The last thing one expects is for people to appear before an appeal mechanism without necessarily having a clue about how the decisions are reached and which issues are likely to be taken into consideration, Therefore, I should like some assurance that guidelines of that nature will be available to those who apply for internal mechanism reviews.
Lord Avebury: I should like to say a few words about the Minister's response to a letter which I wrote to him sending representations from the Black Women's Rape Action Project and Women Against Rape. It seemed relevant to the points raised by my noble friend Lady Williams and the treatment of victims of rape and sexual violence. The Minister said that the Government are not conducting a general consultation exercise on the content of any gender guidelines to be issued but that they have agreed to discuss their proposals with the Refugee Women's Legal Group, which, he said, has taken the lead on that subject among non-governmental organisations.
The support of the BWRAP for drafting the Refugee Women's Legal Group guidelines was acknowledged by the group in its booklet Gender Guidelines for the Determination of Asylum Claims in the UK. I should like to ask the Minister whether, in the informal consultations being undertaken with the Refugee Women's Legal Group, the particular needs of that section of the asylum-seeking population for adequate accommodation will be discussed and that that matter will be specifically dealt with in the guidelines.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I regret that I cannot accept the amendment although I accept the spirit in which it is proposed. From the outset, the Government's intention has been that appellants should have the right of appeal to an asylum support adjudicator where support is refused or withdrawn, but that objections about the quantum or nature of support should be resolved through an internal review procedure, which we are currently establishing.
There are a number of reasons why that is the case. First, it is clear that being deprived of support has a far more immediate and direct effect than simply being dissatisfied by what is provided. We wish to ensure that those who say that they are destitute and in need of immediate support, whether by way of accommodation or provision of essential living needs, should have priority where cases are being taken to appeal.
For that reason, when an appeal is made to the asylum support adjudicator, there will be an immediate internal review of the decision taken which will be carried out while the appellate process is under way. That provision deals with cases where support is not provided or is withdrawn. A similar review will take place where an applicant notifies the Home Office that what is offered is not, in his view, adequate or suitable for his needs and/or those of his dependants.
That review will be equally rigorous, but, as I have said, we do not believe that it should give rise to a right of appeal to an adjudicator. That is because we are satisfied that issues of quantum or nature of support can be properly dealt with by people who know what is and is not available and possible, rather than being remitted to an adjudicator who will hear the case distant from the circumstances and who will have difficulty keeping in touch with any degree of certainty with what flexibility can be operated on a day-to-day basis.
Furthermore, while destitution is something which an adjudicator should be able to assess on a relatively objective level, the myriad possibilities inherent in assessing whether something is adequate or acceptable are much better dealt with by a flexible approach.
Decisions in the review mechanism will be taken by a senior officer who will review each case on its merits. Such review procedures provide effective and flexible remedies in other situations and we feel that they can properly address the situation in this case.
I shall now deal with a number of points which have arisen. If one looks at the current legislation which provides support, the National Assistance Act 1948 and the Children Act 1989, one finds that there are very few judicial reviews. There are tens, rather than hundreds, in a year. That is in the context of legislation which was not designed in the first place to deal with those particular problems, whereas this legislation is. We would not expect to see a significant increase in those numbers, given the existence of the adjudicator and a formal internal review process once the legislation has settled down.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked why the figure of 20,000 was mentioned by my honourable friend Mr O'Brien in the other place. We are expecting to
1538
provide accommodation for up to 40,000 households per year. If every single one of those households is entitled to challenge any aspect of their support, we should expect to see large numbers of appeals to the adjudicator. We should have thought that that would be far better dealt with by an administrative procedure—that is where it is quantum, rather than principle—than by an adjudicator.
As regards the adjudicator, I cannot recall whether the figure of 20,000 of my honourable friend Mr O'Brien to which the noble Lord referred was a figure of 20,000 if the amendment was accepted rather than if the adjudication process proceeded. If the adjudication process continues as at present, the estimated figure is 2,000. It will be far more than that if quantum were involved—that is where the figure of 20,000 comes from.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, referred to victims of torture. The Home Office will be building up experience of dealing with such cases very quickly. We plan to take particular account of the needs of victims of torture where that is clearly demonstrated. Is an internal review adequate? We believe that internal review procedures can be effective if properly managed. I do not have the figures available to me, but I believe that the internal review procedures introduced to the legislation covering homelessness in the Housing Act 1996 has proved effective in dealing with problems of a like kind.
In relation to the review procedure, it is our intention that reasons will be notified to the parties as to the result of the review. Experience of decisions of the internal review procedure will be taken into account in keeping under review the guidelines for case workers. There will be guidelines which will be published so far as it is appropriate. I hope that that deals with all the questions raised and that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, the noble Lords, Lord Dholakia and Lord Avebury and, indeed, the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, for the support that they have given to the amendment which is before the Committee this afternoon.
The Minister said that he would like a flexible approach; indeed, Ministers invariably like flexible approaches. However, people who are on the receiving end of decisions often like to see it written down in black and white, so that they know precisely what their rights and opportunities are likely to be. I do not doubt the good faith of the Minister, but I am not entirely convinced by his arithmetic. I suspect that the system being introduced is also likely to generate many appeals. I do not honestly understand how he can arrive at the differential between 2,000 and 20,000. Only experience will tell whether the Minister's calculations are right or whether the calculations of those who supported the amendment are right.
Therefore, when the new system is introduced, I hope that the Minister will keep this open and that the approach will not become too hard and fast as regards

1539
saying that the adjudicators will not have this as part of their remit. In due course, and on the basis of experience, it may perhaps be possible to give this proposal further consideration. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 94 agreed to.
Clause 95 agreed to.
Clause 96 [False representations]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 175A:
Page 61. line 42, leave out ("under section 85").
The noble and learned Lord said: The government amendments in this group, Amendments Nos. 175A, 175B and 180C, make slight drafting changes in relation to offences under Clauses 96 and 99. They ensure that the offences apply to the interim arrangements in Schedule 8, and to the temporary support provisions in Clause 89, as well as to the main support scheme in Clause 85.
It may be convenient if I turn now to the other amendments in this group; namely, Amendments Nos. 176 to 180B. The purpose of the offence established under Clause 98 is to prevent the work of administering and operating the asylum seekers' support scheme from being hampered by obstruction and delay on the part of other people.
The first amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, Amendment No. 176, would place on the face of the Bill a requirement that, before any conviction could be obtained under this clause, the prosecution would have to prove that the person concerned knew that he was refusing or neglecting to provide the information requested of him. It is difficult to see how someone could refuse to provide information without being aware of the fact that he is refusing to provide information.
As far as concerns negligence, I refer the noble Lord to the words which appear at the beginning of Clause 98(1) at line 38 in the Bill: for there to be an offence, the act complained of must have been committed "without reasonable excuse". Someone who did not know, for example, that a particular piece of information was required of him might well be able to show, on the balance of probabilities, that he had a reasonable excuse for neglecting to provide the information. Thus, while reasonable excuse clearly goes beyond mere lack of knowledge, to encompass other possibilities, in many circumstances it is likely to cover that which the noble Lord seeks to protect. In the circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
I turn now to the noble Lord's second amendment, Amendment No. 177. Perhaps I may, once again, refer the noble Lord to the opening words of the clause, and to the requirement that offences charged under this provision must have been committed "without reasonable excuse". Perhaps I may also refer to the fact that the phraseology of the clause has been taken from
1540
Section 111 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, which deals with a like offence in the context of the social welfare benefits system.
The offence in question is committed where a person, without reasonable excuse, neglects to answer a question, give information or produce a document when required to do so. This is clearly somewhat broader than refusing to do these acts, but not greatly so. The intention behind this offence is to put the onus on a person who is required to provide information under Part VI to turn his mind to the matter, not simply set it to one side and forget it. We consider that this is valid, given that the information in question is required in connection with the support of destitute asylum seekers and their families.
We need both limbs of the offence because, whereas to "refuse" is an active step, "neglect" is a passive step. We do not want to create a position where an asylum seeker escapes sanction or other consequences where he merely "neglects" to tell us that, for example. he has won a massive prize in a lottery, or has had some other change of circumstances which radically alters his need for support under the scheme.
Further, this offence extends to corporate bodies by virtue of Clause 100. In the context of a corporate structure, it may be difficult to prove a refusal to provide the information but much easier to show that, for no good reason, officers of the corporate body neglected to provide the information requested. It is the view of the Government that both limbs of the offence are necessary for it to be an effective disincentive. Therefore, I am unable to commend the amendment to the Committee.
The noble Lord has also proposed three amendments—Amendments Nos. 178, 179 and 180—which would have the effect of adding an additional requirement to the offence created by this clause: namely, that the information being sought is "material". With deep respect to the noble Lord, I would suggest that there is little or no need for these amendments. While a person is applying for or receiving support under the support scheme, which the Bill seeks to establish, it is difficult to think of any information about his or her circumstances which might not be "material". Certainly, on the advice which I have taken, the sorts of information which we propose to seek, whether from asylum seekers themselves or perhaps from their advisers or helpers, about the circumstances in which the asylum seekers and their families and dependants find themselves, will all be material to the assessments which will have to be made for the proper administration of the scheme.
I certainly do not anticipate that a refusal to supply irrelevant information, or to answer a question that proved utterly immaterial, would be pursued under this paragraph. Prosecutors would have far better things to do. Nevertheless, we do not wish to dilute the force of the provision by establishing additional criteria before a prosecution can be mounted. To do so would risk sending out a signal that the Government were willing to overlook the withholding of information unless it could be shown that it made a material difference. We wish to be able to learn of all the issues which affect

1541
asylum seekers supported by the Bill, so that we can continue to support them effectively. For those reasons, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw these amendments.
I should now like to address the amendment proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Amendment No. 180A would affect a clause of the Bill which, as I have already said, has been drafted to maintain consistency with the provisions of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, where a like offence exists. The offence involved is one of obstruction or delay. The offence is committed when an individual—or, under Clause 100, a body corporate—intentionally delays or obstructs someone exercising functions under this part of the Bill, or refuses or neglects to give information when required to do so by virtue of provisions under this part. For example, this could happen when a supported person declines or refuses to give details of his assets in an attempt to retain access to support to which he is not entitled.
We wish the asylum support scheme to be firm, fair and fast. For this reason we require an offence and a sanction to deter and protect against the instance where the administration of the scheme is being impeded. The penalty which the noble Earl would delete is a fine not exceeding Level 3 on the standard scale, which equates to a maximum fine of £1,000. We are providing for summary trial, and for only a monetary penalty. Members of the Committee may wish to know that, for the offence of obstructing a police officer, Parliament has provided for a like maximum penalty of a fine of up to £1,000.
However, under the Police Act 1996, there is an alternative penalty of up to one month's imprisonment, which we do not propose to replicate in this instance. The existence of an offence implies a penalty. I consider that the maximum we have set is a proper quantum, not least because it is a maximum, not a tariff. Magistrates hearing cases will fit the penalty to the circumstances—we are merely setting down a ceiling within which they must exercise their judicial discretion. Again, I ask the noble Earl not to press his amendment when the time comes.
Finally, I should like to turn to Amendment No. 180B, which has been proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. I fully understand and sympathise with the reasons why she has tabled this amendment. However, I wish to give the noble Baroness my assurance that it is not the intention of Clause 99(1)(a) to catch those who, despite their best efforts, have found themselves unable to maintain and accommodate someone for whom they had previously provided a written undertaking of support. There would be no question of prosecuting an individual who, for example, found himself or herself unemployed and therefore genuinely unable to continue maintaining and accommodating someone.
Clause 99(1)(a) catches those who wilfully refuse to fulfil written undertakings of support which they had previously provided and thereby cheat the system. To go back to the example I have just given, someone who is unemployed and is unable to fulfil his obligations could hardly be said to be "refusing or neglecting" to
1542
maintain a sponsorship agreement. He would just not be able to do it. This is similar to the offence of "failure to maintain" which exists under Section 105 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. I understand that proceedings would not be taken against someone under this legislation who, through no fault of his or her own, found themselves unable to fulfil a sponsorship agreement. I hope that that allays the concerns of the noble Baroness which gave rise to the proposed amendment. In the light of my reassurances I hope that she will be minded not to press her amendment when we reach it. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): The Question is that the amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say "Content"—
Earl Russell: Is this not grouped with other amendments?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Before the Question is put everyone should be able to address the other amendments in the group.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: The Minister has performed an intriguing pre-emptive strike by having the good fortune to place his Amendment No. 175A at the head of this group of amendments and therefore, even before debate, he has given us the opportunity of hearing his reply to them. However, he has done that in an adept manner and has certainly dealt with a number of the misgivings that I had when I tabled Amendments Nos. 176 to 180. It will be for the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, to comment on his remarks concerning their amendments.
I have tabled these amendments because of the way that the cards all appear to me to be stacked against the asylum seeker. Where there are concerns about the way in which bureaucracy or the administration operates, or the way in which officials can behave sometimes in an antagonistic or even vindictive manner, it will be difficult indeed for the asylum seeker to establish his or her position. I was concerned to hear the Minister talk of—when he made his pre-emptive attack on these amendments—the dilution of the force of provision. He seemed to imply that everyone who attempts to come here under our asylum arrangements is someone who is trying to cheat the system. Once again the argument of withholding information has been placed before the Committee as though this was a deliberate act and that every asylum seeker would be involved in some deliberate attempt at subterfuge in order to gain admission to the United Kingdom.
As we all know and have discussed many times already in Committee—I shall not therefore labour the arguments—many people come here with documents that by definition are bound to be falsified or information has become obscured because that is the nature of trying to flee and escape from countries and regimes where there is persecution. Ironically, if there is not some kind of subterfuge, it is unlikely that the

1543
person concerned is a serious applicant. Where there is some form of subterfuge the person concerned is more likely to be a genuine asylum seeker. Yet every part of the system that we are creating will be stacked against anyone who appears in any way to have massaged the facts to try to disguise some of the reality.
Earl Russell: Like the noble Lord, Lord Alton, I found it an intriguing experience to hear the answer to my amendment before it was spoken to. The Minister said in effect that he did not know what I was going to say but that he disagreed with it anyway! I heard here Whitehall at its finest—the internal referencing system entirely without any reference to the outside world.
I take the Minister's point about the Social Security Administration Act 1992. I am familiar with provisions of this kind; a great deal more familiar than I would like. I am also already familiar with trying to amend it in the way the noble Lord, Lord Alton, suggests. Before we come back to this matter at Report stage—as I am almost sure we will—may I suggest that the Minister takes advice from the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux? That body is particularly concerned about the impact of provisions of this kind for it says that most people do not understand the detail of social security law. That is clearly the case even if one talks to a Minister outside the Chamber; he certainly does not remember all of it and I would not expect him to, nor would I. Therefore many people make errors unknowingly.
In the wording of Clause 98(2) there is no restriction to relevant information. Clause 98(1)(b) states,
"refuses or neglects to answer a question, give any information or produce a document".
Let us suppose, for example, that a man was asked to produce his wife's love letters. He might possibly imagine that the question was ultra vires. I observe the Minister shake his head. I am glad to do so. However, we must be used to the fact now that when you give power to—
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Will the noble Earl indicate which provision of this part of the Bill would permit a relevant person to ask for the production of love letters?
Earl Russell: Clause 98(1)(b) which states,
"refuses or neglects to answer a question, give any information or produce a document when required to do so".
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The paragraph continues,
"when required to do so in accordance with any provision made by or under this Part".
Can the noble Earl identify which provision,
"made by or under this Part",
of the Bill would permit the production of love letters?
Earl Russell: If a question arose whether the person was genuinely married or whether he was obtaining entry by deception. Such questions arise. It is also well known that when you give power to a minor official he
1544
will almost always exercise it in ways which are sometimes beyond the scope of his authority. Our records are full of such things as far back as they go. The requiring of information can be used as a form of intrusive power. I think that something rather dangerous here is being opened up, as indeed our experience in social security already proves. If people in this country, dealing in their native language, frequently misunderstand the social security system, which is complex, I would expect people from other countries not speaking our language and dealing with the asylum system, which is equally complicated, to be even more often in a fog.
I come to Amendment No. 180A which is in my name. It proposes to delete provision for a fine. I understand the point about a crime requiring a punishment but here we are dealing with an almost cashless economy. The Minister mentioned a fine of up to £1,000. Will this fine be payable in vouchers, and how many weeks' vouchers would be required to pay it?
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 180B. I was grateful for what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, had to say about it. I accept that he spoke with sincerity and with understanding of why I raised the point in my amendment.
The two issues which underlie the amendment are, first, that it is not totally unreasonable for people to ask that there should be on the face of a Bill the assurances that the Minister gave. I appreciate the good faith of the Minister, and indeed of his noble friend, and I do not question them in any way. However, a Bill of this kind when it becomes an Act will be interpreted long after both of them have moved onto higher things—one hopes—and it will continue from government to government. The problem that one always encounters as regards assurances given in good faith which then appear in Hansard is that the extent to which they can have the force of law is somewhat limited. I think that many of us therefore have sought to give these restraints and constrictions on the clause something of the force of law.
My first point relates to why the Minister takes exception to the wording of phrases such as "without good cause" when he has agreed that the true meaning of the clause as read would include a recognition of words such as "knowingly", "reasonably" and "with good cause." Many of us would feel happier and more content if such words were on the face of the Bill.
My second reason for raising the matter concerns those who are required to advise asylum seekers and refugees of where they stand. My noble friend Lord Russell has pointed out that there is a great deal of misunderstanding of these complex legal points. From the advisers' point of view, and from the point of view of other bona fide advisers of people who come to seek their help, the more that can be clearly stated the better it will be for everybody. It is unlikely that advisers in CABs in, say, Sheffield or Liverpool will look up the report of this debate in Hansard and he able to quote back the Minister's assurances.

1545
I take the Minister's point. However, the gravamen of what I have to say is that I do not see why there should be an objection to these words. I know the Minister says that they are not necessary. But if we on this side of the Committee believe that they are necessary—perhaps because we have less faith in the mechanisms of government; the Minister is, after all, a member of the Government—it is not unreasonable to ask what is the objection to these words appearing, given the additional safeguards they provide for the individual applicant.
As the Minister rightly surmised, yes, I did have in mind the possibility of someone who, in good faith, had agreed to sponsor an asylum seeker or a refugee family and had then lost his job—or perhaps the owner of a small business which had gone bankrupt—and, therefore, for reasons beyond his control, was simply unable to maintain that sponsorship. Again, the phrase "without good cause" seems, to us at least, to cover such contingencies. While we accept the Minister's good faith when he says that he cannot imagine a situation where such contingencies would not be taken into account, many of us who have been engaged over many years in making laws would feel a great deal happier if he was willing to say that such wording would appear on the face of the Bill.
Lord Avebury: Perhaps I may ask the Minister a question. He put to my noble friend Lord Russell that there was no provision in this part of the Bill to require a person to produce love letters. But it is not merely information or documents in accordance with any provisions made "under this Part" of the Bill; it is "made by or under this Part." Therefore the requirement to produce that information would not necessarily be on the face of the Bill. Does the Minister accept that under the rules made by the Secretary of State in pursuance of the powers given to him under Clause 95, there may well be a requirement on a person to produce information of a particular kind, the nature of which is not ascertainable until the rules have been published?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Let me deal with the points raised during the course of the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, seemed to suggest—I hope it is not an unfair paraphrase—that my pre-emptive strike was based upon the implication that we suggested that all asylum seekers are attempting to cheat the system. Let me make it absolutely clear that that is not the position at all. If anything I said suggested that, I unreservedly withdraw it; I certainly did not intend that. The fact that we have a Theft Act in this country does not imply that we think everyone in the country to be thieves. We simply recognise that we must have provisions to deal with circumstances which may arise.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, supported by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that we should insert the word "material." The noble Earl, Lord Russell, then referred to love letters. With the greatest of diffidence I asked him what part of the Bill permitted one to ask for love letters. He referred to the fact that love letters may be required to show that someone was genuinely married. That would be relevant to the question of whether or not
1546
they were in the country lawfully in the first place, but of course that has nothing to do with this part of the Bill, which is about support for people pending the process of asylum hearings.
I do not accept that I was wrong in relation to that. But let us suppose that the example the noble Earl gave demonstrates the point that that kind of question, in order to be askable, must be material. That is the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. I do not accept that the example is accurate but, even if it were, it demonstrates, first, that the example is bad; secondly, if it is a good example, it shows the need for materiality; and, thirdly, if I am wrong about all of those points and there could be a circumstance in which love letters were asked for—assuming that they had nothing whatever to do with the issue before the authorities; namely, support—the question would then arise of whether the person had a reasonable excuse for not providing them. Answer: plainly yes. As the noble Earl is aware, an offence is committed under Clause 98 only if a person intentionally delays etc, "without reasonable excuse".
4.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: Does the noble and learned Lord accept that this exchange is proof that the question of what is material may be susceptible to argument.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: With the greatest respect, I would have thought it was quite the reverse. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, seeks to insert the word "material." Even if it were susceptible to argument, the mischief with which the noble Lord seeks to deal is unnecessary. I do not think that there is much between us in relation to this matter. It is more a drafting point than a point of substance.
Let me now deal with the other points raised in the debate. The noble Earl raised the question of the removal of any penalty for this offence. The noble Earl does not suggest that there should not be an offence; there should therefore be a penalty. The penalty imposed by the subsection he suggests should be removed is up to £1,000. The noble Earl, powerfully, persuasively—and totally misleadingly—refers only to the one side of the coin; that is, a person who does not have any money who is convicted of an offence. In those circumstances the court is well able to take such matters into account in determining the fine, which is a maximum of £1,000.
What would be the noble Earl's response to a person who gets support by telling a farrago of lies to disguise the fact that he has millions of pounds available to him in this country? In those circumstances, would he regard a fine of a maximum of £1,000 as unjust?
Earl Russell: Obviously there must be a punishment. I thought that the Government—and especially the noble and learned Lord—might have more expertise than I in what should be an appropriate punishment. I assumed that if these words were removed they would have substituted others; I would have been happy to discuss that.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: With the greatest respect, the noble Earl has not answered the point at all.

1547
We have proposed a fine of up to £1,000. In the case of a destitute asylum seeker, a minimal fine would be imposed by the court. In the case of someone who had told lies and had money, a fine of £1,000 does not seem unjust. That is why we inserted it in the Bill. The noble Earl has not come back with any counter-proposal.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, says that if we are all thinking alike, why do we not put such a provision on the face of the Bill? I think as we go through the Bill we will see that the relevant protections are there, both in terms of what is an appropriate offence and in relation to the rights of a defendant. If one puts unnecessary words into a statute—as the noble Baroness suggested—it would simply lead to confusion and unnecessary prolixity.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: Will the noble and learned Lord readily agree that there are absolutely no unnecessary words in this very long Bill?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I cannot give such a guarantee. We have tried our best not to include unnecessary words. Whether we have succeeded, I do not know.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 175B:
Page 61, line 42, after ("person") insert ("under any provision made by or under this Part").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 96, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 97 agreed to.
Clause 98 [Delay or obstruction]:
[Amendments Nos. 176 to 180A not moved.]
Clause 98 agreed to.
Clause 99 [Failure of sponsor to maintain]:
[Amendment No. 180B not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 180C:
Page 63, line 7, leave out ("section 85") and insert ("any provision made by or under this Part").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 99, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 100 agreed to.
Clause 101 [Payments to local authorities]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 180D:
Page 64, line 1, leave out ("an authority") and insert ("a body").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 180E:
Page 64, line 3, leave out ("authority") and insert ("body").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 101. as amended, agreed to.
Clause 102 [Grants to voluntary organisations]:
Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 181:
Page 64, line 12, at end insert—
("() In the exercise of the power conferred under subsection (1) the Secretary of State shall ensure that as far as possible similar support is available in Northern Ireland as in Great Britain.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 181 standing in my name, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 211. Both amendments specifically refer to Northern Ireland.
Amendment No. 181 deals with support for asylum seekers. As I said earlier in Committee, I was well briefed by the new upstanding Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. That commission has told me that it is particularly unhappy about the part of the Bill relating to support. Northern Ireland is remote from the centre of things and has only about 400 asylum seekers a year. The voucher system may be adequate where there are plenty of asylum seekers, but problems occur when the vouchers are not recognised and people do not know what to do with them. In addition, there is a severe shortage of management in that part of the world; hence the wording of Amendment No. 181.
Amendment No. 211 refers to equal opportunities. As the Committee is probably aware, the Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland specifically lays down what needs to be done to conform to its requirements. We are concerned that the Government have not considered those provisions in the light of the equality duties that are conferred on all public authorities in Northern Ireland in terms of Section 75 and Schedule 9 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. En that regard, the commission urges the Government to conduct an urgent audit of the possible impact of the proposed policy on the equal opportunity of people in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Lord Hylton: It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, could have made a stronger case. Perhaps the Government could completely reconsider how Northern Ireland should be treated in the context of the Bill, given the very small number of asylum cases and given, I imagine, the fairly small number of immigration cases that occur there each year. Perhaps it would be better to leave matters as they are now, at least as regards support systems, vouchers and such matters.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am grateful for the opportunity that Amendment No. 181, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, gives me to explain our proposals for the support of asylum seekers who are located in Northern Ireland. The Bill applies equally to all parts of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. To the extent that there is a need for support for voluntary organisations in Northern Ireland, Clause 102 will provide for that and it will be used in that way.
We see an important role for the voluntary sector in Northern Ireland. At present, it is not our intention to relocate asylum seekers into Northern Ireland. So the extent of support arrangements in place there will reflect only the number of asylum seekers who present themselves to the authorities in the Province. That

1549
means that arrangements are likely to be relatively small scale. Therefore, rather than set up large-scale contracts with commercial providers, we shall, in all probability, set up smaller-scale ad hoc arrangements with the existing voluntary sector to cater for asylum seekers who arrive in the Province of their own accord although we shall use our powers under Clause 85 for that purpose rather than the grant-making powers under Clause 102. That will ensure that asylum seekers in Northern Ireland receive the necessary assistance with accommodation and essential living expenses.
We see an important role for the voluntary sector in Northern Ireland. We propose to treat it on broadly the same terms as the voluntary sector elsewhere in the United Kingdom. On the basis of that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Amendment No. 211, also proposed by the noble Lord, opens up the prospect of a different time-scale for the implementation of Part VI in Northern Ireland.
Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 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 group. 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 a 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.
Those provisions of the Northern Ireland Act have not yet been substantively commenced. The new equality commission has not been appointed and it is unlikely that the equality scheme system will be in operation until next year. When it is, the Act lays out a system for complaints about the implementation of equality schemes to be considered by the equality commission. The Northern Ireland Act does not include provision for individual equality impact assessments to be laid before Parliament.
The amendment tabled by the noble Lord 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 after they have been designated by order. No final decisions have yet been made on which departments will be so designated.
I believe that this is also an appropriate time to mention that the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission had previously raised concerns with the
1550
Government about the provisions governing the support of asylum seekers contained within the Bill. I take this opportunity to say that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has written to the chief commissioner responding to his points and, I hope, providing reassurance that we believe that the approach contained within the Bill concerning support for asylum seekers will meet all of our international obligations, and that it will give complete support to those who are genuinely fleeing persecution, wherever they seek asylum within the UK.
I hope, in the light of my earlier comments relating to Amendment No. 211, that the noble Lord will not move that amendment.
Lord Glentoran: I thank the Minister for that clear explanation. I am delighted to hear that his right honourable friend in the other place has written to the commission. I hope that it will be satisfied with what it reads. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 102 agreed to.
Clauses 103 and 104 agreed to.
Clause 105 [Overpayments]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 181A:
Page 65, line 29, at end insert ("as a result of the error").
The noble and learned Lord said: I hope that the Committee will agree that this minor amendment will serve to improve the clarity of legislation, something to which this Government ever aspire. It safeguards the interests of the asylum seeker by putting beyond doubt that the only amount recoverable from the asylum seeker would be the amount overpaid by way of error. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: I welcome the amendment. It brings the law in this area into line with social security law in a way that is thoroughly appropriate. Does it also imply the e converso principle which is applied in regard to social security; namely, if an under-payment is detected, the department will meet it?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: That certainly does not follow from this amendment. It relates to over-payment.
Earl Russell: In that case, will the Minister contemplate completing the bringing in of the alignment, as was first proposed?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I will think about it. My initial reaction is that, if there is an under-payment, that would be in accordance with some provision of the legislation and that would not be necessary.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 105, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 106 [Exclusion from benefits]:
Lord Alton of Liverpool Lord Alton of Liverpool moved Amendment No. 182:
Page 65, line 39, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 183 to 185. The first three amendments in this group deal with the issue of disability. Amendment No. 185 deals with the entitlement of families with children to a limited range of mainstream benefits. With the permission of the Committee, I shall speak to the first three amendments and deal subsequently with the fourth.
The first group of amendments is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, who has asked me to express his apologies that he cannot be present for today's debate and to express his support for the arguments advanced. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, also has his name to this group of amendments. The second group is also supported by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby.
Many noble Lords will have seen the report in the Sunday Times last weekend concerning allegations that the French Government are paying refugees to seek asylum in Britain and that a confidential report has been sent to the Home Office by British immigration officials. It claims that substantial numbers of refugees have been placed on trains in order to take them out of French jurisdiction and place them under British jurisdiction.
If that is so, it seems extraordinary, given all the arguments advanced last week about collaboration with our European Community partners and the purpose of these arrangements being to safeguard asylum seekers. On the one hand, with the collaboration of another EC government, it appears that there is a deliberate abuse of our asylum arrangements and therefore the deliberate misuse of taxpayers' funds; on the other hand, we are being asked to approve legislation under which benefits are to be taken away from vulnerable groups of genuine people, including the disabled and families with children. Given those oft quoted words, "fairness", "firmness" and "faster arrangements'', this provision would seem to do none of those things. I hope that, in replying, the Minister will at least say a word about those reports. Does he agree that those resources could be placed at the disposal of vulnerable groups such as those who are disabled?
The purpose of the first three amendments is to ensure that disabled asylum seekers have a right to special support for which they qualify because of their disability. Clause 106 means that no one who is subject to immigration control will be entitled to a range of income, maintenance and extra cost benefits, including disability benefits. These amendments would ensure that severe disablement allowance, which is a meagre income replacement benefit available to those who are defined as 80 per cent disabled, and disability living allowance, which is an extra cost allowance for those with significant care and/or mobility needs, would still
1552
be available to those subject to immigration control who meet the criteria for those benefits in terms of their disability.
The Bill contains some welcome proposals for speeding up the asylum application process and far dealing with the backlog of cases. We all welcome those. But other aspects of the Bill not only fall short of alleviating the problems faced by disabled asylum seekers in particular but threaten to exacerbate the stress and difficulties caused by their disabilities.
Although there do not seem to be official figures on the number of asylum seekers or refugees who are disabled, perhaps in replying the Minister will be able to give the Committee some guidance as to the numbers of people whom we know to be disabled among those who are currently registered as asylum seekers. Disability organisations with a great deal of experience in the field support the view that the incidence of disability and ill health is much higher in that group than for the population in general. It would be for the interest of the Committee to have some comparative figures.
For some asylum seekers, it is the direct experience of depression, imprisonment, ill treatment, beatings or torture which results in disability. For example, beatings on the head can cause permanent damage to the inner ear and loss of hearing. Rape and other forms of sexual abuse often result in permanent damage and recurring health problems. For others, disability results from untreated wounds or malnutrition experienced when fleeing from persecution or war.
The loss of limbs as a result of landmines is, for example, a major cause of disablement in parts of the world which experience, or have experienced, warfare. Until recently, I was treasurer of the All Party Anti-Landmines Group. Many Members of this place are members of that group and are well aware of the situation concerning landmine victims. Last year, I travelled to the Burma/Thai border and saw at first hand prosthesis centres operating in areas where many people lose limbs as a direct result of the conflict in that part of the world.
Those asylum seekers with existing physical conditions such as diabetes, heart disease or haemophilia will have those conditions exacerbated by stress and the inability to obtain regular medical treatment. It is extremely common for physically disabling conditions to be accompanied by mental health problems among asylum seekers. In addition, the Committee will be well aware that HIV and AIDS are likely to affect some asylum seekers and their children. There is a high incidence of AIDS among people coming from central Africa. Many noble Lords will have read the harrowing accounts of AIDS victims in countries such as Zambia and Kenya. Many do not know that they have the disease, and access to services is inadequate. A healthy diet, warm clothing and accommodation, not having to share bathroom facilities, and minimum stress are important in enabling that group to prevent their health deteriorating further.
The mental health problems that I have mentioned are the commonest manifestation of disability among asylum seekers according to those who operate in the

1553
field. Many asylum seekers suffer post-traumatic stress syndrome. The experience of torture, of seeing family members tortured or killed, of rape and beatings can all result in serious mental health problems. I recall visiting camps such as Bekla and Hwakalo on the Burma border last year and meeting people there who had seen family members raped or, in one case, a grandmother killed as a result of a bomb being dropped into the camp from the Burma side of the border. There were harrowing accounts of husbands who had been made to work as porters and were shot dead when their physical health broke down. That led to the mental breakdown of many of those family members who had been exposed to those accounts and sometimes to seeing the incidents at first hand.
There is, of course, the stress of not knowing what has happened to family members who have left their home country. Many of us have read the recent accounts of those fleeing from countries such as Kosovo and not knowing what has happened to other members of the family or what the future holds. All of that can lead to chronic depression, to isolation and also to mental illness. People can develop physical symptoms in relation to stress and fear and can undergo a personality change. Many others become ill as a result of dislocation from their home and culture and as they experience the loneliness of exile and alienation in the unfamiliar, often hostile societies in which they find themselves.
For others, it is the loss of status and responsibility consequent on the transition from being respected professionals in their own country to life in emergency accommodation and a hand-to-mouth existence in day centres. I have encountered groups of Sudanese and Egyptian Copts, for instance, living in this country and have drawn up reports on the situations in their home countries. These people are often high-powered individuals who suddenly find themselves regarded almost as the lowest of the low. Having to deal with the circumstances in which they find themselves can be traumatic.
Children can also become physically disabled as a result of injuries inflicted in war conditions or by exploding landmines. Others will have been disabled from birth or early childhood but have little access to medical treatment. Childhood diseases that leave little mark on British children can have serious consequences in countries where children are weakened as a result of poor nutrition and inadequate access to healthcare. Polio and TB are common causes of disability and ill health in many poorer countries.
My noble friend Lord Hylton was responsible for successfully amending a previous Criminal Justice Act to deal with the plight of children who were exploited by so-called "sex tourists" in countries such as Thailand and the Philippines. Your Lordships will be aware of other examples of children being shot dead on streets. I was the founding chairman of the All-Party Street Children Committee. I recall harrowing accounts by people from Guatemala, Nicaragua and Brazil of children being molested on the streets and shot dead because they were regarded as worse than vermin.
Children and young people also suffer from mental ill health. This may result from the loss of parents, witnessing beatings, rape or killings, or coping with the stress of the ill health of another family member. A teenager whose parent is severely depressed and unable to cope is also likely to suffer mental health problems. Other children find themselves bullied or taunted at school, unable to concentrate on lessons and isolated and lonely if they do not speak the language or have money to join in activities.
There is an accepted body of research that more than substantiates my assertion that disabled people from all of the categories I have mentioned face extra cost as a direct consequences of their disability. This is accepted by government and reflected in the social security system through the provision of extra costs disability benefits: disability living allowance and attendance allowance. There is also some limited recognition, in the form of disability premiums and disabled child premium for income support, within means-tested benefits that extra financial help is necessary for households with a disabled member.
The most obvious direct financial costs of disability are hearing aids, sticks, wheelchairs, special beds, prostheses, glasses, incontinence pads, handrails, home adaptations, ramps, non-prescription medicines, special cutlery and tin-openers. In addition, disabled people often must spend more on meeting basic needs: extra heating, especially if mobility is restricted; extra hot water for bathing, perhaps as a result of night sweats or pain relief; extra clothing, if this wears out more quickly; specially made clothing and shoes, if a disabled person's body shape is unusual or he or she is unable to use back-fastenings; extra laundry costs—hot water and washing powder—due to incontinence; extra nappies, sheets and mattresses for the same reason; food for special diets or allergies; individual transport and fares to hospital; and cleaning, cooking or personal care.
On top of these extra needs, disabled people may have to pay more for basic items. People with limited mobility may have to use the nearest, rather than the cheapest, shops. A disabled asylum seeker may face all or some of the extra costs that I have mentioned. I have deliberately not included those extra costs incurred by permanently settled disabled people, such as specially adapted cars or major home adaptations, such as stairlifts and the like.
Therefore, the withdrawal of access to social security benefits from those who apply for asylum in-country rather than at the port of entry has already resulted in much hardship among asylum seekers. Refugee organisations have provided well documented evidence of the disastrous effects of leaving asylum seekers destitute. The response of local authorities has been welcome and well intentioned but it is inefficient, expensive to administer and denies choice. It is not acceptable that the level of provision to an asylum seeker should be dependent entirely on the particular local authority area in which he or she happens to end up. The provision of bed and breakfast accommodation and food vouchers causes major problems for someone whose disability means that he or she must keep to a special diet. Health professionals report that their work

1555
in treating asylum seekers is hampered by their patients' inadequate diets, poor and insecure accommodation and generally high levels of stress.
It is therefore to these issues that I draw the Committee's attention in considering Amendments Nos. 182 to 184 which seek to reinstate the position of disabled people above and beyond any other category. I make no apology for singling them out in that way. I believe that there are very good reasons why the Committee should consider giving them particular consideration. The purpose of Amendment No. 185 is to restore the entitlement of families with children to a limited range of mainstream welfare benefits.
Last Wednesday the Minister made a welcome announcement in Committee regarding support for children as part of the family by the asylum support directorate. I strongly welcome that. However, there are four areas on which I should like the Minister briefly to touch in his reply. First his announcement that a couple with two children would receive £106 per week implies that asylum-seeking children will receive 100 per cent of the rate for children up to the age of 11 years. The increase in the provision for asylum-seeking families should not be paid as a flat rate of £24.90, which is the rate paid for children under the age of 11, but should increase according to the child's age. The payment of 100 per cent of the personal allowance for the purposes of income support for asylum-seeking children should correlate to the rate payable to a resident child of the same age. When the Minister comes to reply perhaps he will comment on that proposition.
Secondly, the increase in provision is said to be paid in cash as opposed to vouchers. The proportion of cash payments to vouchers should be increased in relation to the whole package for families. Can the Minister elaborate further on his statement on that matter last week?
Thirdly, the value of the support package for families with children rises in accordance with inflation and is in line with the annual increase in benefits payments. When the Minister comes to reply, can he say whether the value of this support package will rise in relation to benefits payments and whether, when the provision under Part VI of the Bill is implemented, in practice the value of the support package for parents and carers with children will be based on the equivalent level of income support?
Fourthly, provision is made for the payment of one-off grants for families immediately after arrival in the UK. I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement prior to Report in another place that after six months families will receive a one-off payment to meet the costs of replacing items, such as clothes and so on. While the payment may address the problem of replacing items of children's clothing that either wear out or are outgrown after six months—I raised this point with the Minister when I saw him as part of a delegation from the Refugee Council—it does not help families to provide for their children immediately upon arrival in the UK.
As we witnessed in the recent events in Kosovo, many families flee their homes and countries wearing literally the clothes in which they stand. There is a need
1556
for families to be able to purchase everyday clothing as well as particular items, such as warm clothes if they arrive in the winter. Many families may have had to exist without recourse to washing facilities or a change of clothes, which may render many clothes useless after weeks of difficult travel. In such circumstances families will need immediate recourse to funds to replace basic essential living items, the cost of which will be beyond them if they must exist on only 70 per cent of the adult income support level and 100 per cent of the personal allowance of income support for children.
I hope that, in the spirit of the Minister's recent very welcome announcement relating to children, he will be able to respond to the matters which are dealt with in Amendment No. 185. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I shall speak to Amendment No. 186 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Graham. Effectively, it seeks to disapply some of the provisions of Clause 106(1)(e), (j) and (k) where there is evidence of persecution or torture, or both, which it elaborates.
The asylum support directorate is charged with enormous responsibilities. I do not believe that I go too far in suggesting that it is charged with setting up a separate system of welfare support. Those responsibilities go far beyond those which commonly exist in the welfare system in this country, because they determine where people should live and to which services they are able to seek access. In other words, they will decide whether an asylum seeker lives in an area where someone is able to communicate with that. person in a language which he or she may understand; whether there is a representative who is a specialist in asylum law and able to take the case of the asylum seeker; whether the asylum seeker lives in an area where healthcare workers are able to make appropriate linguistic and cultural provision, and whether he or she lives in an area in which specialist healthcare responsibilities are available. That is why I say that these are huge responsibilities.
I am not at all sure that the support directorate is doing more than setting up a very rudimentary way of dealing with these vitally important matters. Is it right that people who have undergone severe torture should be thrown into such a system?
The Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture, which has vast experience in such matters, asserts that in its experience safety, comfort and security make a huge difference to the ability of people to work through the experiences of torture, organised violence and exile. The steps proposed here do not suggest that that is the objective.
I know that my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn is extremely sensitive to all these matters. He gave assurances in the earlier debates in Committee that the dispersal policy will be sensitive to the need of the survivors of torture to access services and that, where a survivor of torture needs to travel to attend appointments, for example, with the medical foundation, the expenses will be met by the support directorate.

1557
Many people including myself also have other concerns about the support scheme, in addition to those about dispersal. There are serious anxieties about the support proposals outlined in the Bill and in the documents produced by the asylum support team. As I understand it, little has allayed the anxieties of specialists in this field that the projections as to the time people will spend in the system, the numbers involved, and the cost and scale of the administrative project, are realistic. There is anxiety that the scale of services for refugees available in different regions has been overestimated. There is a fear that the support system will in due course, perhaps not immediately, become a system in crisis. Surely, the kind of people we are talking about have had enough crises in their lives already.
The asylum support information document asserts that the system being designed will have a significant deterrent effect. Is that the right sort of system to be set up here, having regard to the kind of people we are talking about? I am concerned with a whole range of case studies which have been submitted to the department about the anguish being endured by people in these circumstances; namely, those who are clearly torture survivors. I do not propose to weary the Committee with a list, but I hope that my noble friend is aware of them. I shall send him the documentation that has been made available to me.
I hope that my noble and learned friend will be able to offer some words of comfort in a potentially dire situation which has already become dire for many people. I hope that my noble and learned friend will be able to allay some of the very profound anxieties which have been expressed to me by an organisation of unsullied reputation which has a great deal of experience in dealing with the victims of torture.
Lord Dholakia: My name appears to this amendment, together with that of the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. He has very ably dealt with the disability issues. What better champion could there be on that issue than the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, who has also put his name to this amendment? I do not need to develop the same arguments again.
I should like to concentrate on Amendment No. 185. If there is an area of serious concern in the Bill, it must be about the provision relating to children. We welcome the number of concessions that the Minister has already announced. But this particular amendment seeks to go a little further in trying to exclude certain people from the provisions of paragraphs (e), (j) and (k) of Clause 106(1). There was something of a heated debate last time when someone questioned whether we had the permission of the taxpayer on these matters. Perhaps I may put it another way. Throughout the world, this country has a unique record of supporting charities concerned with children. If this is one particular cause in which we should seek the approval of taxpayers, I have no reason to doubt that they would support what we are trying to do in this clause.
1558
The amendment would take the asylum-seeker family with children out of the support scheme. Access to welfare benefits is currently restricted to asylum seekers who apply for asylum at the port of entry. The need for this amendment is particularly urgent because of the nature of the support that is to be provided for children and families under Part VI of the Bill. That may seriously compromise the welfare of children and their development. A lot of material has been produced by the Children's Consortium. Perhaps I may first of all declare an interest as a trustee of the Save the Children Fund. Other organisations, such as Barnardo's, UNICEF, the Refugee Council's children's section, and the Children's Society, are all concerned at the likely implications if we do not adequately support an asylum seeker's dependent children under the age of 18.
As I said earlier, we acknowledge the recent announcement as regards support arrangements for families with children. However, despite that concession, the legislation and the fundamental principle on which the asylum support directorate will operate still remain unchanged. As such, it will continue to appear that many of the provisions of Part VI of the Bill (on support for asylum seekers) clearly continue to breach Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights—relating to the right to family life—the Children Act 1989 and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. As it stands, the Bill's provisions on support arrangements for families will be detrimental to the welfare and development of children and inadequate for meeting their particular needs.
This is the first time in decades that support for an asylum seeker's children under the age of 18 is to be set at less than 100 per cent of the urgent cases rate of income support. The Government have justified that reduction in income support levels on the ground that a destitute asylum-seeking family will be dependent on the asylum support directorate only for two months while the asylum claim is being determined. The Minister in the other place stated that an asylum-seeking family will not have the same living expenses as a resident family. An asylum-seeking family will not have to replace long-term household items and utility costs will be met by the asylum support directorate while a one-off payment may be available to families after six months living on the asylum support arrangements.
Major concerns remain despite recent government announcements. Perhaps I may explain those concerns. Income support is designed to cover only day-to-day subsistence needs as opposed to additional long-term expenses ably identified in the detailed cases specified by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. Children and their families have the same basic daily living needs regardless of their immigration status and the time they are resident in the United Kingdom. There is a lack of public scrutiny regarding the detail of Part VI of the Bill, and a lack of empirical evidence to establish an irrefutable link between the incentive of income support payments and the arrival of asylum seekers in the United Kingdom. We need to concentrate resources upon achieving best value within the Immigration and Nationality Directorate as the most efficient strategy to reduce abuse of the asylum system.

1559
I refer to the relative cost of supporting asylum-seeking families with children through welfare benefits as opposed to the arrangements of Part VI of the Bill. There is the incompatibility of the support arrangements of Part VI with the Government's commitments and obligations to safeguard the best interests of the child as set out in international and domestic childcare legislation. I point out the contradiction between the Government's policies towards asylum seekers and their commitment to eradicating social exclusion and poverty among all children, young people and families in the United Kingdom and the discrimination and daily difficulties faced by asylum-seeking families and their children who are obliged to use vouchers as the main source of income.
It is undoubtedly the case that the most effective disincentive to economic migrants would be to speed up the decision-making process for asylum claims. We welcome the Government's commitment to reducing the current length of time in making a decision on an asylum claim as this will prevent people abusing the system over the years. However, the priority given by the Government to creating a below-subsistence level support system despite the adverse effect on the development of children stands in disappointing contrast to their commitment to tackle child poverty and social exclusion.
Many asylum-seeking families will ultimately settle in the United Kingdom. The initial impression gained while they wait for the decision will have a lasting effect on the emotional attitude of children and young people towards their host country while the support arrangements are likely to have a negative impact upon their physical and social well being. It is not conducive to the long-term settlement of asylum-seeking families to place them in a system which will not enable them to meet the children's basic needs. I hope, therefore, that the Government will look sympathetically at the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others.
5 p.m.
Lord Hylton: I support this group of amendments. The first three of those proposed by my noble friend Lord Alton refer to the removal of disability benefits from asylum seekers. We have to look at the context in which it is proposed that this should happen. We know that there is a backlog of some 75,000 cases stretching back to 1993, perhaps a little further. The Committee will recall that that was the year of the Act previous to the last legislation on the subject. So we are faced with a number of disabled people, some severely disabled, who will be deprived of what they currently receive.
I shall be grateful if the Minister will reply to this question. If the Bill is passed as drafted, will asylum seekers suffering from disabilities be placed in a worse position than other immigration cases which happen to be pending?
On Amendment No. 185, I should be pleased if the Minister would undertake to study between now and Report stage the 24 pages of briefing on this one
1560
amendment produced by the Children's Society speaking on behalf of five of the leading voluntary children's societies in this country. I shall not weary the Committee with the details, but it would be helpful if the Minister could deal with the five points spelt out by my noble friend Lord Alton on dependent children under 18. I hope that we can have satisfactory answers today.
Viscount Brentford: I support the amendment. However, I wish to ask the Minister a few questions. The clause seems somewhat oddly structured. Subsection (1) deals with the jobseeker's allowance. What is the thinking behind the drafting of the clause? It does not matter how the individual's disability arose. Some people become disabled in the course of the flight from their country to avoid persecution. Others were disabled earlier in life. It is important that in either case people who are disabled are properly looked after in this country.
There is a great deal of anxiety among those who have the practical care of asylum seekers that only about 70 per cent of the value received—whether in vouchers or cash—will be available for the asylum seekers as opposed to those who are in this country. The exclusion of the allowances will make carers of asylum seekers even more concerned. I am sure that many Members of the Committee are receiving papers, letters and memoranda expressing concern about the situation. If the Minister rejects the amendment, I look forward to an assurance from him as to how the extra financial provision will be made by the Government or the local authority to ensure that those disabled people are properly looked after.
The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells: I begin with an apology. I was unable to take part in earlier discussion of the Bill, although I am grateful for the diligence shown in amending it. I am grateful to my colleagues on these Benches for the important contributions they have made.
When I first saw the Bill, I was unfortunately ill and therefore unable to give it my whole attention. However, I was shocked at the treatment that the Bill implied and threatened. Having worked for 13 years as the Bishop of Stepney among immigrant communities and being involved many times in disputed cases, the unamended version of the Bill suggested to me a nation which, in its desire to deter economic migrants, was committing itself to laws which not only added to the suffering of genuine asylum seekers but which were also insensitive to the needs of the extremely vulnerable families involved.
I have vivid memories of the lives of children shut up for months, indeed, years, in one room. I have memories of the illness and neurotic disorders involved. I experienced that not only in east London, where families often became submerged in the difficulties which already existed for others, but also in a new town where the victims, so to speak, were considerably isolated by being so different from the rest of the community.
I therefore want to express appreciation for the way in which the Government and Ministers have listened to the debates and amended the proposed legislation. There have also been many consultations outside your

1561
Lordships' House, not least with the voluntary organisations, the consortium which has just been mentioned concerned with children, and the Children's Society of which I am the chairman.
Sadly, I come to the debate late in the day, but I want to pay tribute to the progress made. However, today I hear substantial anxiety and a hope for further change. There are more questions still to ask. I shall not repeat the evidence given by the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Dholakia, but, in case the Committee thought that by my silence I did not support what they said, I wish to stand and support them.
There appears to be a distinction between the Government's policy towards asylum seekers and their commitment to eradicate social exclusion and poverty among all children, young people and their families in the UK. We all realise the enormous difficulties in the situation which the Government face and we want to encourage them in their determination to be fair and just to such families as they come exposed and vulnerable to our society. I want to emphasise the great importance of the cohesion of families. If, through all the harrowing events which have brought a family here, they manage somehow to stay together and to support each other, they are different from the isolated people I have seen during my ministry who crack up under the pressure of the society around them.
One proposal which distresses me, and which was noted by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is the use of vouchers. The voucher system was described by the Government as expensive, cumbersome and not very useful, and I do not know why it is necessary now. Will the Minister attend to that detail because there is something discriminatory about trying to live with vouchers? They are discriminatory in terms of available shopping facilities; other people see the vouchers being used at the check-out; and the system is difficult to control.
On the one hand, I want to thank the Government for what is being done, but, on the other hand, I believe that there is still more to be done. Finally, will the Minister more fully explain the voucher system and how people are expected to survive on them in their own setting?
The Earl of Sandwich: The amendment seeks an assurance from the Government that asylum seekers, especially the vulnerable groups, are not treated on a different basis from our own citizens. It can be fairly stated, but today we have heard evidence that asylum seekers need to be treated more generously than our own citizens because of the afflictions they have endured.
I have visited refugee camps in Thailand and Sudan where refugees or asylum seekers are treated better than the local population. The local population feel resentment, but that is not the case in the United Kingdom. However, the organisations are most concerned that we should consider these vulnerable groups on an equal footing, if nothing else.
5.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: I have not found it so difficult to take part in a debate since the poll tax! I shall not detain the
1562
Committee long, but I want to ask for clarification. It is common ground that disability carries extra costs. Those costs were quantified, or an attempt was made to do so, by the OPCS survey in 1990. Every disability organisation I know believes that it underestimated the costs. I know no one who believes that it overestimated the costs.
The question then arises: do the Government intend that under the provisions of Clause 85 those needs of asylum seekers will be met? If the answer is "yes", the question arises: will that be by benefits or will the costs of disability be recognised as essential living needs within the meaning of Clause 85(7)? If the Minister can answer "yes", we have a further question to discuss. If he cannot answer "yes", he must accept the amendment. Those costs exist and, one way or another, they have to be dealt with.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I want to refer in particular to Amendments Nos. 185 and 187ZZA on the supplementary Marshalled List. Sometimes when I listen to debates on the Bill in this House I am reminded of nothing so much as a brilliant pianist dealing with a broken-down piano and a very bad composition. No one who has sat through our days of debate in Committee could be other than extremely impressed by the ability, compassion and responses of Ministers. The trouble is that the composition is frightfully bad and however brilliant their handling of the instrument, the Bill is appalling.
No part of it more clearly demonstrates that than Clauses 106 to 108. They are invested with a mean-spiritedness which is not within the mood or spirit of this country nor of this debate. Distinguished contributions have been made. I shall not name everyone because it would take too long, but what we heard from the right reverend Prelate, from the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, from the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and others bears out the fact that there is a strong spirit of humanity in this country and that the Bill falls very far short of it.
I shall not go on, except to say that in Amendment No. 185 some of us have tried to deal with the position of families which include children under the age of 18. In Amendment No. 186, the noble Lords, Lord Graham and Lord Clinton-Davis, have tried to deal with the victims of torture. We have tried to exempt those particularly vulnerable groups from the sheer harshness of the decision that benefits relating to people's needs over and above the basic level of income support cannot be met because the people concerned are subject to immigration laws.
As the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, said so forcefully, it is troubling that we seem to be relegating the most vulnerable groups to deliberately less favourable treatment than ourselves, despite the situations they have confronted and experienced. None of us would argue that there need not be proper controls. We have discussed that in other parts of the Bill. However, that cannot explain the discrimination against the disabled, those who are mentally ill and, above all, those who are in need of our mercy and understanding.

1563
Because of the shortage of time, I shall direct myself to only two amendments in a little more detail. Amendments No. 185 and 187ZZA relate in particular to the position of children. As my noble friend Lord Dholakia so eloquently said, Amendment No. 185 relates to the attempt to re-establish the right to child benefit, housing benefit and council tax benefit for families which include children. It would go some way to restore their position from what has been laid down elsewhere in the Bill.
Amendment No. 187ZZA—I apologise for the complicated nomenclature of the amendments—relates more directly to what the Government have said. I want them to explain the present position. Earlier in the Committee proceedings, we strongly welcomed the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, about a decision to restore to children 100 per cent of their benefit entitlement in certain clear situations. Those situations related in particular to families waiting for procedures to be completed and appeals to be heard for a period longer than average expected as a result of the speeding-up of the process by the Government.
Amendment No. 187ZZA attempts to put into more legal phrases promises made from the Government Benches as regards the position of families where the average targets at which the Government themselves are aiming cannot be met. The Government have used the phrase "average lengths of time". They have also said, "When it appears that those lengths of time will have been accomplished". However, the phrases used so far are not precise. Amendment No. 187ZZA attempts to set out in precise detail the situations in which families with children would continue to be entitled to the present support system up to the introduction of Part VI of the Bill. Therefore, the provisions would be the same as they have been until now for children in families, and support would not be reduced in any period in which the targets were not met.
Amendment No. 187ZZA seeks to provide that persons whose families include children under the age of 18 will continue to be eligible for the social security benefits to which they would have been entitled if Part VI of this Bill or Schedule 1 to the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 had not been passed. In short, the amendment seeks to hold the Government to their promise that families will not be subject to the support system and will not have their existing right to benefit withdrawn until the targets have been met.
In the second part of the amendment we specify the targets. I believe that they are directly in line with those at which the Government are aiming; namely, three months from the lodging of an application for asylum if no decision has been received and six months from any appeal if it has not yet been disposed of. This is an attempt to ask the Government to set out in more detail the nature of their commitment; for how long the full support system set up under existing legislation will be maintained for families with children; at what stage families with children would fall back on Part VI of the Bill—namely, the new support system—and whether
1564
that would happen if the targets were not met. I invite the Government to say rather more about their intentions towards families with children.
Baroness David: I rise to express my support for Amendments Nos. 185 and 187ZZA, so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. 1 support very much what has been said by the right reverend Prelate. Furthermore, I should like to support what he said on vouchers. The Government have gone some way to improve the Bill, but it could do with a great deal more improvement. I hope very much that the Minister has listened to the concerns that have been expressed. I have a special interest in those involved with children. I hope that the Minister can be of real help when he comes to reply.
Viscount Astor: The amendments relate to Clause 106 which refers to the allowance under the Jobseekers Act and other benefits. Rather depressingly, I note that the Jobseekers Act was passed in 1995. I remember piloting the measure through your Lordships' House. It seems a long time ago, but there we are.
I should like to comment only on Amendment No. 185, which was spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. I do not want to add anything except to say that we welcome the concessions made by the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked questions which I believe deserve careful consideration by the Minister. I am sure he will give that. I hope equally that the Minister will not be drawn into a debate on the principle of vouchers. We have already had that debate and it is not necessary to go over it again. In any case, the principles do not relate to these amendments.
We are all concerned about children and how asylum seekers with children should fit in. My only concern about Amendment No. 185 relates to council tax. I am not sure whether an asylum seeker would ever pay council tax, so that provision seems rather unnecessary. However, the issue of children is important. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I shall take a little while to respond to the amendments because the debate on them has lasted about an hour. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I reply at some length. I believe that the noble Viscount is right. Last week we had a very extensive debate about vouchers, the principle of them and so forth. I think that the topic has now been sufficiently addressed. I realise that different views have been expressed, but there must be a limit to how many times we discuss the same topic, especially as these amendments do not focus on vouchers.
Despite the right reverend Prelate's experience in the past of children living together in one room, in some cases for years—we all deprecate that—perhaps I may say quite gently that that is the kind of vice that we are trying to avoid in the Bill. A family with dependent children will not live in a single room for years. They will be given proper, furnished accommodation. They will have pots and pans and the necessities of life; they will have their utility bills paid as a part of the

1565
scheme; they will be looking to a determination of their claim not in years but in two months and to a determination of any appeal which might be lodged within a total of six months. That is an infinitely better scheme and it bears no relationship to the circumstances described by the right reverend Prelate.
As the noble Viscount pointed out, my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer and I have sketched out on many occasions our policy approach to the scheme behind the Bill. It would better assist the Committee this evening if I focus on the amendments before us.
I do not know anything about a report in the Sunday Times; that is, any secondary report. I read the report myself. Whether it was accurate, I simply do not know. There has been a suggestion, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, pointed out, that some "French officials" were making financial payments or giving free tickets or similar benefits to encourage people to come here. I do not know whether that is true.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: Before the noble Lord leaves that point, I should like to point out that the report on the front page of the Sunday Times also indicated that a report had been lodged by immigration officials with the Home Office corroborating some of the allegations. Is that the case?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I said that I do not know about the secondary report. I understand that that was the report within the Sunday Times referred to by the noble Lord. If, before Friday, I discover anything further, I shall of course get in touch with the noble Lord as soon as I can. However, I have made inquiries and we do not have any knowledge of that report at this moment.
Several noble Lords asked about the number of disabled asylum seekers. At present I am told that there is a very small number. The phrase I have been given is that "a handful" receive the benefits mentioned in Amendments Nos. 182, 183 and 184. Perhaps I may give the reason for that. At present, those whose leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom is subject to limitation are not eligible to claim severe disablement allowance, disability living allowance or disability working allowance. That is the present state of our law and has been our law under the arrangements which derive from the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996.
Amendments Nos. 182, 183 and 184 would extend entitlement to those three benefits to all persons subject to immigration control, as defined in this clause. I do not know whether the movers and supporters of those amendments contemplated that that would apply not only to asylum seekers but to people who come to the United Kingdom in a wide range of circumstances; for example, visitors, students and business people, or if it is the intended consequence that that should be the result. It would be.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I shall try not to interrupt again. I think he can accept from me on behalf of the other proposers of the amendment that that is not the
1566
intention. If the amendments in any way lead towards that, they would have to be clarified by redrafting. As the Minister knows, the purpose of the amendment is directed at the group I identified in my remarks. I wonder whether, therefore, he will concentrate on that group on the assumption that we will return with an amendment that deals specifically with those involved?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I understood that to be the purpose of what the noble Lord seeks. However, it is my duty to inform the Committee of the consequence of an amendment, if accepted.
These benefits are all non-contributory. They are not based on individual national insurance contributions but come from general taxation. Obviously, people may come to this country for a variety of reasons. Visitors, students and business people have their interests. Some people come here as ultimately well founded asylum seekers. Quite a significant majority come for other reasons. Some are genuine economic migrants. I have said before that I sympathise with their motives; I am sure that all noble Lords would. Some people come here for fraudulent purposes. Any sensibly organised system has to deal with a wide spectrum of people.
We believe that the status of a person's stay in this country should play a part in deciding to what extent he or she should benefit from the protection afforded by the social security system. Generally, when there are restrictions on a person's right to remain in Britain, that person does not have access to the social welfare system in the normal way.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, indicated privately to me—I am grateful for his courtesy—that he was concerned about the essential living needs of asylum seekers. I know that RADAR shares his concerns. Perhaps I may say to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who raised this point, that where individual asylum seekers are able to show that they have needs beyond the general norm arising from disablement they will be able to make their claim to the support scheme for such assistance as represents their essential needs. For the reasons I have given, I am not therefore able to accept Amendments Nos. 182, 183 and 184.
I turn to Amendment No. 185. Under Clause 84(5), where an asylum seeker's household includes a dependant under 18 the family will continue to be entitled to support under the Bill scheme while they are in the United Kingdom until they are granted leave to enter or remain, or leave the country.
I remind the Committee that the cash element of the support has gone up to £10 per dependant child per week. Perhaps I may reiterate that if the average time for initial decisions on asylum applications by families has not been brought down to two months by 1st April 2000 they will not be brought into the new support arrangements. I have said that on an earlier occasion. I reiterate it in deference to the amendment and to the question asked by the noble Baroness. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, raised a number of questions.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Before the noble Lord moves

1567
on to the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, perhaps I may pursue a point. I understood clearly what the Minister said at an earlier stage, and I believe that the Committee welcomed it. The problem is the same as the one to which I referred in my earlier discussion with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. How does one put that pledge on to the face of the Bill so that it is clear in law what such a family is and is not entitled to? That is my concern.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising that point, which I would have returned to. We will be taking a view, very early in 2000, as to whether we can expect to meet the two-month target. If we cannot, families will continue as at present. They will not be brought into the new system. I do not believe that it is necessary to have that on the face of the Bill. It would not be politically sustainable for any Home Secretary to renege on a pledge which he clearly made and I have repeated on at least three occasions in this Chamber.
We will not put families into the scheme if we have not been able to satisfy ourselves that we can meet the two-month target. I do not think I can put it plainer than that. It is true that the more cynical might say, "Why not put it on the face of the Bill?" That is a question which has been asked on a number of occasions in various contexts. The answer is that there must be a sensible limit to what one puts on the face of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked a number of questions. I recorded four, not five. I am grateful for his acceptance of the increased level of support which I announced last week. That will reflect the merging of the different income support levels for children up to the age of 16. That will take us up to 1st April 2000. The noble Lord also asked about the increase of cash and the expense of vouchers; the ratio question. I am not able to take matters any further. I have gone as far as I can in that context.
The third question I recorded related to the increased uplift in a general correlation to DSS benefits. We will keep the level of support under annual review. I cannot give a commitment at this stage about the nature of the link to DSS benefits. I do not believe that any Minister could.
The final question raised by the noble Lord was perfectly legitimate, if I may say so; namely, what about people who need clothing on arrival, particularly if the weather is inclement, or, as he said last time, children have simply outgrown their shoes. We believe that the voluntary sector, which will be handling the initial reception arrangements, is best placed to give assistance with immediate replacement items where needed. That is much more helpful than people coming from a land far from home trying to make their own arrangements.
I shall return to the other questions raised. The underlying purpose of Part VI is to take asylum seekers out of the social welfare benefit system and offer them a fast, accurate delivery of support that is responsive to their individual needs. We want to be faster, firmer and fairer. I do not believe that a delayed scheme, of the sort referred to by the right reverend Prelate, is civilised; that
1568
is, to keep people in limbo for years. It is very important that we identify at an early stage those who are entitled to asylum. We have a duty to treat them with a decent regard to their needs. However, we have to bear in mind that their needs are not necessarily the same—in fact they will generally not be the same—as the needs of those who are otherwise destitute in our society.
I repeat that we are providing a decent level of support with furnished accommodation, pots and pans and all utilities paid for. We are providing the opportunity of a grant after the six-month period with a positive indication (I cannot say a cast-iron guarantee for every family in every circumstance) that the two-month and six-month regime will be in effect before they enter the scheme. These arrangements, properly administered in a sensitive way, are much better than what presently happens on occasions. I refer to the dumping of people in local authority areas where they meet hostility because the local community simply will not or cannot cope.
A better outcome would be to find a sensible resettlement scheme, discussed so many times in the progress of this Bill, with people from similar cultural, linguistic and ethnic backgrounds clustered together helpfully away from the pressures of the south east. It is certainly a more humane one.
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, is right. We do not believe that income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit are appropriate or relevant. I shall not repeal: what we are offering; I have made it perfectly plain.
I understand the point behind Amendment No. 186, but it refers to the case of,
"an asylum seeker where there is evidence of persecution or torture, or both".
This is my problem: if the reference to "evidence" means evidence that the Secretary of State has accepted, then, unless the persecution has been for a reason outside the refugee convention, the individual would by then have been granted refugee status. If the noble Lords mean simply where the asylum seeker has given oral evidence or provided a document indicating that persecution has occurred, that would apply to every asylum seeker.
Earl Russell: Looking for middle ground, I would suggest that it means where the claim of torture is supported by expert organisations or professional medical witnesses.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: That is what I have tried to meet in answer to the very helpful conversations I have had with the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. I dealt with that matter last time. I do not say it was a concession; that would sound graceless. I was extremely pleased to have their informed intervention, and I think I met their legitimate concerns.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: While the Minister is on that point, I should like to say that I have been reflecting upon the earlier exchange between him and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, about whether or not the promises made should be put on the

1569
face of the Bill. Although, of course, it is quite understandable that not everything can be put on the face of the Bill, Amendment No. 187ZZA is so crucial to those in the voluntary agencies who are very anxious about the effect of the Bill on children and family life that it would bring a great deal of confidence to them if the noble Lord could reconsider his response to that amendment. It might change the tone of the way in which the voluntary agencies regard the Bill.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I shall come to that when I have finished the point I am dealing with now, because I should deal with the amendments in a coherent pattern. I am dealing now with Amendment No. 186, which concerns the specific question to which my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis spoke.
I repeat that if the evidence referred to in the amendment is evidence which has been accepted, the claim will have been upheld. If it is evidence by way of assertion, which it could be, it will apply to virtually every asylum seeker.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: The Minister was kind enough to refer to the earlier concession that he made in the light of the conversations that he had with my noble friend Lord Dholakia and me, for which we are extremely grateful. In the course of those conversations he said that where a general practitioner agreed that there was a prima facie case that there could be torture he would accept that the cost of attending a more senior and expert medical practitioner would be borne as part of the support system. We were very grateful for that.
I think that what my noble friend Lord Russell has in mind is the possibility that where a GP agreed that there was a prima facie case there might be an argument for considering additional support along the lines of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, specifically in that rather specialised group of cases where the GP has conceded the likelihood of torture but where there has not been a final outcome to the case, which, as the noble Lord rightly said, would bring it within the terms of the convention.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I certainly think there is a case to be considered there. I hope that I can develop my response to it as I proceed.
What the noble Baroness has said is really about introducing a single or dual filter: whether one takes the certificate of the general practitioner or the concluded view of the medical foundation as the final arbiter. I take her point that that builds in safeguards, which are needed, because otherwise assertion will be the same as evidence. It is morally wrong to treat people who have genuinely been tortured in the same way in every instance as those who simply assert it, maybe wrongly.
What I have to say is important to many voluntary organisations with a particular interest in this field. Incidentally, I forgot a long time ago to declare that I was once a patron of an organisation called Redress, which deals with people in this capacity. I hope that the Committee will forgive me retrospectively.
1570
We shall instruct officers dealing with asylum cases that they must be particularly careful and sensitive when they deal with people who say they have been tortured, and that rape or other sexual violence should be treated as torture. I know that some members of the Committee have been very keen to underline that. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, has done so on a number of occasions, saying that in some communities rape is an even more horrendous act than in others, because it is used as a particular device; almost, I think, the noble Lord said on another occasion, as an activity of war. Therefore, those will be the instructions given. Obviously, if there has been torture it is a very important element in deciding whether an asylum seeker qualifies for refugee status.
I return to the general points that were put by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and those who supported him. I agree that if one has been tortured there will be many consequences, which will not simply be physical. They may be long-term. There again I say—and I believe we should take the credit for it—that if there is a family one or more of whose members have been tortured it is a good deed to tell them "Your application will be dealt with in two months, and if you have an appeal you will know where you are in six months". I put this as humbly as I can when I say that this is part of the restorative process, which I know will be long term, that I think the noble Lord had in mind.
We want, therefore, to have determinations carried out as swiftly as possible. If the person's account is believed, he or she is accepted. If it is not believed, he or she will not qualify for refugee status. But where the asylum seeker is part of a family containing a dependant under the age of 18, I repeat, we continue to offer support until they have left the United Kingdom.
I go further, because the noble Earl and the noble Baroness quite properly wanted to draw these points out. Where an asylum seeker evidences a particular need for treatment arising from torture or sexual violence, he or she will have the freedom to apply under the asylum support scheme for this to be covered as an essential living need. I think that was the specific question the noble Earl put to me. He or she will have access to the health service, and to social services at a local authority level, to get the help, support and treatment needed.
We want to deal with all asylum seekers equitably, and I believe that treating them in the way that our scheme provides brings that about.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, asked about extra finance for local authorities. My understanding is that funding local authority services for asylum seekers will be part of the normal spending assessments associated with the local government finance settlement.
A number of Members of the Committee raised the question of children's organisations. We had a most useful meeting just a few days ago in the Home Office with some representatives from Save the Children, UNICEF, Barnardo's, the Children's Society and the Refugee Council. They raised particular questions about details of how the scheme might work in practice. I undertook that if they wrote to me I would give them every consideration as regards any assurance I could give them, whether in writing or in this Committee,

1571
about their concerns. I am waiting for their letters. I am not chiding them; the meeting took place only a few days ago.
Amendment No. 186YA is a minor drafting amendment. We made an identical amendment to Clause 4, and I say no more about it.
We next come to Amendment No. 187ZZA, concerning the processing times for asylum applications. I have made my position plain. We will not bring in the new support arrangements if we have not reached the position that I have mentioned in answer to the noble Baroness. I am told that we shall be able to achieve that target. Work is in hand to ensure that the average time for appeal is kept down to no more than four months. If we need to defer commencement—it is possible—we can do so by means of the commencement order powers in the Bill.
It is not right to say that we are making asylum seekers worse off than people in receipt of social security benefits. I repeat what I said when I made the announcement about the additional cash for children; that is, that they will be broadly in the same position. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, was seeking to press me on asylum seekers receiving disability benefits and what will happen to those who may be in transition. I paraphrase what he said, but I believe that I do so fairly.
Lord Hylton: I was concerned about the backlog and the impact of the whole of Part VI on them.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The backlog—by which I mean people who are in receipt of disability benefits at the moment—is very small. Their rights will be preserved until the next review of the situation. I repeat, the generality is that entitlement to disability benefits was removed in 1996 but a small number of people are still in receipt of them.
I know the anxiety expressed, but I repeat that exceptional types of support can be provided under Clause 86(2) for those who are disabled. We are looking to one-stop shops funded by the Home Office which will provide advice from experienced workers in the field.
I dealt with the point of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I hope: that I have dealt with all the queries. I do not mistake the importance which Members of the Committee attach to these matters, but in return I ask that, when we make improvements—and we have—the nature of them should be widely disseminated. Many people have concerns which were raised at the outset when the Bill was published. Some of them were misplaced. I understand that. Some of them were well based and we have met a good deal of them. So I do not ask all Members of the Committee immediately to join this side of the Chamber and sit behind my noble friend and myself. However, we have made concessions and it is better that people should know about them rather than be fearful.
I cannot accept these amendments. I have taken a little while but thought it appropriate.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: I shall be brief in my response. The Minister should not get a complex about
1572
this. He may recall that in my introductory remarks I paid tribute to what he said in Committee last week about the position of children. I hope that in all parts of the Chamber we have been fair to the Minister. I also asked him last week whether he would meet children's organisations. Within seven days he has done so and been able to report back to the Committee.
So there have been immediate responses on a number of occasions and the Minister has taken seriously all the issues that have been raised. The issue at the heart of our anxieties is the one expressed by several Members of the Committee in this debate; that is, what should be on the face of the Bill. The Minister told us, for instance, that in 1996 disability benefits were taken away from disabled people and we would be reverting to the pre-1996 position if we were to do that.
Clearly this provision was on the face of legislation prior to 1996 and did not include all categories of all visitors; it included those people to whom it was directed. That is the purpose that lies behind this amendment, although I am happy to accept what the Minister says about the wording being improved. I asked the Minister to indicate whether he would be prepared to go back to a pre-1996 position when it came to the question of how disabled people are dealt with. He indicated in his reply that it is not the Government's intention to do that. Obviously I am disappointed by that reply and know that many others will be also.
The Minister said in his response that we are talking about only a handful of people. Whether we are talking about the children mentioned in the course of the debate on Amendment No. 185; the disabled people mentioned in the course of the debate on Amendments Nos. 182, 183 and 184, or the victims of torture, they comprise relatively small numbers; yet they are crucially important categories to whom we should extend every possible assistance. I know that many Members of the Committee who opposed the 1996 legislation—including some now sitting on the government side of the Committee—did so because they knew that such groups were worth keeping within the context of the law and safeguarding. I believe therefore that this will be an issue to which we shall return on Report.
We are being asked to make a leap of faith by not writing these safeguards on to the face of the Bill. However much we may respect the integrity of the Ministers who have spoken during our Committee stage, it is not their integrity and it is not their probity which is at issue. It is how these categories and groups of people will be treated in the future, possibly when there are Ministers in office who will be less receptive to these concerns than has been this Minister of State.
My final point before seeking to withdraw the amendment—awaiting the opportunity to divide on these issues on Report—involves the issue of discrimination. We have gone to great lengths to pass laudable legislation on issues such as discrimination against disabled people. We passed the 1989 Children Act—one of the better pieces of legislation passed during the past decade; yet we are setting aside that legislation to say that the one group of children who will not be protected by the Children Act will be the children

1573
of asylum seekers, and the one group of disabled people who will not be protected by legislation affecting disabled people in the United Kingdom will be disabled people who are asylum seekers. That is discriminatory and I suspect it will be open to challenge in the courts in due course. I hope therefore that between now and Report stage the Minister will continue to listen to the representations being made to him and give these matters further consideration. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 183 to 186 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 186YA:
Page 66, line 29, leave out subsection (5).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 106, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 107 [Amendment of section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 186ZA:
Page 66, line 35, leave out from ("person") to ("may") in line 36 and insert ("to whom section 106 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (exclusion from benefits) applies").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 108ZA and 186C are drafting amendments designed to standardise the terminology used throughout Part VI of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 107, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Earl Russell: I am relieved to know that the Minister's amendment was a purely technical, drafting amendment. I have not been able to work out any major purpose in it or substantial change. It adds a little elegance to the Bill and that is to be welcomed.
But the substance of Clause 107 is an altogether different matter. Considering that clause, I am reminded of the sad story of Mrs Jones's funeral. Mrs Jones, one day, collapsed; became unconscious; her pulse stopped; she was pronounced dead. The undertaker was called in; she was placed in a coffin and the funeral was organised. They carried her in procession down the hill and as they turned the corner into the gate of the churchyard, they bumped against the corner. A noise of tapping was heard from inside the coffin, which was opened, and Mrs Jones, very much alive and extremely angry, was taken out of it.
Twenty years later, Mrs Jones was pronounced dead. The undertaker was called in. They arranged the funeral; they organised the funeral procession; they carried the coffin down the hill to the corner by the church gate. As they carried the coffin in, Mr Jones said, "Be careful not to bump against the corner"!
On the last occasion that benefits for asylum seekers were restricted, the corner that they bumped against was the National Assistance Act 1948. This Government are now not merely careful to avoid bumping against the
1574
corner but are actually taking down the corner. This principle of the whipping boy is rather a drastic application.
I should apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, for discussing the duties of local authorities under the National Assistance Act 1948 when she is in the Chair and cannot take part. I have listened to her, with benefit, many times on this subject. I would like to take as correct everything that she has said on the subject.
The National Assistance Act was not an ideal vehicle for dealing with the situation. Indeed, very far from it. On the other hand, it was, as experience taught us, a safety net. Whoever removes a safety net is either an optimist or a sadist. I shall not speculate on—and I believe that the rules of order forbid it—which of those the Ministers concerned might be. However, I always think the best of them.
The wording of the clause is very curious. Clause 108 totally disapplies the National Health Service Act 1977. However, it makes only a limited disapplication. It does not disapply the National Assistance Act for other needs, such as pregnancy, disability and old age. It disapplies it solely for the purpose of destitution. Clause 107 states:
"A person … may not be provided with residential accommodation under subsection (1)(a) if his need for care and attention has arisen solely because he is destitute".
The Bill therefore clearly envisages that destitution may possibly result. The Bill may not expect it. It may simply be an example of belt and braces. However, the Bill certainly considers that this is possible.
The Bill therefore seriously considers the possibility that destitution may result and may be unrelieved. It sounds a little unfortunate. Were I to discover such a document in isolation, I would be very tempted to put the worst construction upon it. The need to relieve real destitution, where one finds it, is part of our common humanity. It is part of the same impulse that makes one pick up survivors at sea following a shipwreck or makes one try to rescue people from a burning building. If those impulses were dead, the world would be a very much poorer place than it is. It would indeed diminish us all. I cannot see why the clause needs to envisage this. I cannot understand what useful purpose is served by leaving destitution unrelieved.
I understand, of course, all the basic points regarding economic migrants. There is no way of ensuring that this clause will bite only on economic migrants and not on genuine asylum seekers. That is simply not within the realm of administrative possibility. On Second Reading, the Minister said:
"It is not motivated—to answer the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell—by the desire to make everything more unpleasant".—[Official Report, 29/6/99; col. 249.]
I very warmly welcomed that assurance. However, I oppose the clause standing part of the Bill.
6 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I believe that the noble Earl wanted me to put myself in the sub-category of either opportunist or sadist; optimist or sadist. I hope that that was not a Freudian slip!
I believe that we are trying to be humanitarian and realistic. I do not believe that I can expand on the policy difference here. Our intention is to take asylum seekers from the mainstream welfare system and put them under the new arrangements of the support. Clause 107, by way of insertion after the reference to the National Assistance Act 1948, states:
"A person subject to immigration control … may not be provided with residential accommodation … if his need for care and attention has arisen solely because he is destitute".
As I have already explained, our intention is to provide an intact scheme for those in that category, separate from the mainstream welfare system, in what I believe is a more responsive and sensitive way. I believe that it is a prudent way and one which will be more effective.
At the moment, local authorities accommodate over 15,000 asylum seekers under the 1948 provisions. I do not believe that anyone who has looked at this matter with any care could dispute that there is an intolerable strain on a small number of social services departments. That is not fair to them, it is not fair to the local communities, and it is not fair to those who are in the position of having to rely on this small number. I repeat that in future they will be relieved of the burden and asylum seekers, defined by Part VI, will be able to apply for support under the new scheme.
All destitution needs will be met by the new scheme by virtue of Clause 85. One does not have to meet destitution needs under Section 21 of the 1948 Act. I am aware that the noble Earl has said that he is alarmed. However, I do not see any cause for alarm. If the matter is put to the Committee, I would urge such of your Lordships who have followed the earlier arguments in some detail not to agree with the noble Earl's proposition.
Lord Avebury: What will happen to the people who are at present accommodated, under the provisions of the National Assistance Act, in hostels run by the London boroughs where the pressures may be very acute? Will these people be able to remain indefinitely in the places in which they are at the moment residing, or will they too be forced to move to the provinces?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: They will not be able to remain indefinitely. A decision would have to be made about their status. I believe that that is one of the serious vices in which we have colluded over the years; namely the uncertainty and limbo. No one will be left destitute. There will be people who will still be eligible for social benefits in the general mainstream. However, when we start the support scheme under Part VI, everyone will be entitled to those elements of the support scheme which we have discussed over a length)' period of time.
I believe it is wise to contemplate—and this is what we do contemplate—moving single people, over time, to relieve the pressure on London. There is a genuine
1576
pressure on London. I do not believe that it is simply a question of the ignoble "not in my back yard" syndrome. A very large proportion of accommodation in London is being used by local authorities when they have competing demands on their resources. I repeat that if one carries out dispersal on a cluster basis with a decent regard to the matters that I have mentioned, that will be a better outcome for people than simply being stuck in sometimes not very agreeable circumstances in London and the south east.
Earl Russell: The Minister has answered my question. He is an optimist, and I am very glad to hear it. However, he has not answered the question asked by my noble friend Lord Avebury. What is to happen to people who are at present in accommodation under the National Assistance Act in the period between the commencement of the Bill and the conclusion of their applications?
I believe that osmosis is in progress, is it not? I never for a moment wished to suggest that it was the intention of the Minister or anyone else in the Government to leave these people destitute. I never for a moment wished to enter into the debate on the comparative merits of the National Assistance Act 1948 and the system recommended in this Bill. Whenever osmosis is complete, I shall be happy to hear its results.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Earl is always extremely courteous, bearing in mind the distance between me and the box. The answer to his question is that we shall use the powers under Schedule 8 to meet the question identified by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.
Earl Russell: I thank the Minister for clearing up that matter. Coming to the point of replying to him, I was not suggesting that the intention was to impose destitution. The point of a safety net is that it is used when the existing system does not work. That is why it was used in 1996. But things can go wrong, if the Minister tells me—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: It was used post-1996 because there was no alternative. I am suggesting that there will be an alternative—which is the whole of die Part VI regime. The situations are entirely different. Without the courts' utilisation of the National Assistance Act 1948, there would be no means for support. That is not the position which we have here.
Earl Russell: If the Minister had waited for one more sentence, he would have found that that intervention was unnecessary. I was about to deal with the point which he was making. It is, of course, clear that every system, including the one being introduced under Part VI of the Bill, is capable of breaking down on occasion. If the Minister believes that he has introduced the perfect system which will never break down then he will be the first Minister in any government in the history of the world ever to do so. In that case I should congratulate him even more warmly than usual. But—begging the Minister's pardon—I do not expect to do that.

1577
There is the possibility, as happened in Lübeck, of a large part of accommodation provided under Part VI being burned down and no immediate other accommodation being available for that particular night. In that situation, for example, the powers under the National Assistance Act 1948 could have been very material and useful to clear up an immediate emergency in which action would have been essential. I believe that the Minister will miss those powers sooner or later. However, I shall not press the point tonight. I withdraw my opposition to the Motion that the clause stand part.
Clause 107, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 108 [Other restrictions on assistance: England and Wales]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 186A:
Page 67, line 1, leave out subsections (1) and (2).
The noble Earl said: In moving the amendment I shall speak also to what is, in fact, my main concern. That is to oppose the Motion that Clause 108 shall stand part of the Bill. Clause 108 disapplies the National Health Service Act 1977. There is a sharp contrast between the way in which Clauses 108 and 107 apply. Clause 107 bites only on need because of destitution. But Clause 108 bites on practically all forms of social service provision. It bites on care of the elderly; on all sorts of community care; it may well bite on some of the services which have to be provided for victims of torture; it bites on the treatment of illness. I do not see why it has been made quite so far-reaching. I hope that in his reply the Minister will explain the reason for the difference in the drafting of the two clauses. It has puzzled all of us for some time.
There is also a danger that the wording,
"a person subject to immigration control",
may make it even more difficult than it is at present for members of our ethnic minority communities to obtain treatment and service when they need it. We know the sort of difficulties that we have run into with the operation of Section 8 of the 1996 Act. Many people do not understand "exceptional leave to remain", and believe that any unusually-spelt name is sufficient proof of foreignness. It is just as well that they do not live in America because they would rapidly learn otherwise. Perhaps they should all be sent to visit.
Clause 108 also disapplies all the mental health services. We have been hearing all day about the effect of trauma in the course of becoming an asylum seeker on the mental health of those concerned. It is always likely to be considered. If trauma is followed by a total refusal to provide access to the necessary services, there must be a risk that trauma may lead on to paranoia. Paranoia is capable of leading to all sorts of undesirable forms of behaviour. When that happens, people may complain. I believe that the appropriate reply may be, in the words of John Stuart Mill, that it shows:
"The inability of the unanalytic mind to recognise its own handiwork".
To cut severely disturbed people off from mental health services is liable to bring its own poetic justice with it. I do not applaud that. I regret it very deeply. But there
1578
is a considerable unwisdom involved. I should like to hear why the Government believe that this is a sensible thing to do. For the life of me, I cannot understand it.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I may be able to be helpful. The noble Earl has raised an important question on Amendment No. 186A in the distinction which he drew between the two succeeding clauses. Our belief is that the powers under the provisions to which the noble Earl spoke are little used by local authorities. I am not denying that there may be a need for existing services. I am trying to be helpful by saying that we are considering the need for Clause 108(1) and (2) and that those subsections should be restricted to those subject to immigration control whose need for support arises solely as a result of destitution. I believe that that meets the point which the noble Earl was making.
Viscount Astor: Perhaps it would be convenient if I spoke to my amendment, Amendment No. 187, which is in this group. I should like to make two quick points. I understand that, as currently drafted, the Bill 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. We are concerned that that proposal will have much further-reaching consequences than those immediately apparent for the individual concerned. To leave an immigrant suffering from a mental disorder without access to residential accommodation or aftercare services will have profound public policy implications. To adopt such a policy would raise concerns for the safety of the community as a whole.
That seems to fit rather strangely with the Home Secretary's recent announcement in relation to our own nationals in this matter. Perhaps the Minister will briefly enlighten the Committee on how those fit together. My further point is that, as I understand it, mental health law is devolved to the Scottish Parliament and is currently being reviewed by the Scottish Executive. How does that fit with the powers in Clause 108?
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I do not wish to delay the Committee, as the Minister obviously hoped that his intervention would prevent us from doing so. I simply want to ask him, for absolute clarity, whether he is saying that Clause 108(1) and (2) would not apply to people subject to immigration control as a result of the further consideration which he is giving to the representation made by my noble friend Lord Russell, or whether we have misunderstood that. We are not completely clear on these Benches.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Earl has raised important questions. He has pointed out the difference in drafting between Clauses 107 and 108. I said that I would look again at subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 108 to ascertain whether asylum seekers with specific need to access services provided under those provisions will be able to access them in the same way in future.

1579
As I understood the noble Earl's questions, they were: why have you cast Clause 108 differently from Clause 107? Are you in danger of excluding those whom you do not really want to exclude? I believe that he has a legitimate point. I did not give any guarantee in that respect, but the reason I intervened early in the debate was simply to say that I thought it was a point that we ought to consider. Indeed, it is one that I shall be considering actively before Report stage.
Earl Russell: I thank the Minister most warmly for that response. I do not yet know whether I have received a welcome concession or a very welcome concession; in either case, I am extremely pleased. I look forward to hearing more about it on Report. For the time being—
Viscount Astor: Before the noble Earl withdraws the amendment, I wonder whether the Minister would like to respond to my points now or wait until we reach Amendment No. 187.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Amendment No. 187 is included in this group. However, I thought that I should give way to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, on that point. I should remind Members of the Committee that this group comprises Amendments Nos. 186A, 186B and 187. I have dealt with Amendment No. 186A and the noble Earl has responded. Amendment No. 186B will remove the current prohibition on making an order under Clause 109(1) that would grant access to social housing to people excluded from support by virtue of Part VI.
I should point out to the Committee that I am dealing, first, with my amendment. I shall then turn to the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Viscount. The general intention is that those subject to immigration control who are here for a limited period should not have access to long-term social housing. There are some cases where we might want to relax that; for example, some universities lease spare accommodation from local authorities to accommodate students, some of whom may be from overseas and subject to immigration control. The amendment is designed to give flexibility.
I am grateful to the noble Viscount for raising his particular point and for giving me this opportunity to deal with it. I can tell him that I am aware that there is some concern that we have the drafting wrong; in other words, we have gone further than is necessary. Therefore, I undertake to think carefully about this and, if necessary, I shall come back with a further amendment on Report. Essentially, the Bill is about the support of asylum seekers during their asylum application. However, I can confirm to the noble Viscount that, in the devolution context, asylum is a reserved matter.
Earl Russell: I beg leave to with my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 108 agreed to.
Clause 109 [Housing authority accommodation]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 186B:
Page 67. line 36, leave out subsection (2).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 109, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 110 agreed to.
Clause 111 [Other restrictions on assistance: Scotland]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 186C:
Page 68, line 33, leave out from ("person") to ("is") in line 34 and insert ("to whom section 106 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (exclusion from benefits) applies").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 187 not moved.]
Clause 111, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 112 agreed to.
Clause 113 [Support for children]:
Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 187ZZA:
Page 70, line 5, at end insert—
("() An eligible person whose household includes a child under the age of 18, and his dependants, shall be eligible for any social security benefits to which they would have been entitled if neither Part VI of this Act nor Schedule 1 to the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 had been in force, until such time as the Secretary of State has placed a report in the Library of the House of Commons giving details of the average process times in the determination of—

(a) initial asylum decisions; and

(b) appeals to adjudicators against initial asylum decisions,

and certifying that the average time from the lodging of an asylum application by a person whose household includes a child under the age of 18 to the initial decision on such applications is riot more than 2 months and that the average time from the lodging of such asylum applications to the determination by an adjudicator of the initial asylum decision is not more than 6 months.
() An eligible person whose household includes a child under the age of 18, and his dependants, shall in any event be eligible for any social security benefits to which he would have been entitled if neither Part VI of this Act nor Schedule 1 to the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 had been in force, if—

(a) 3 months have elapsed since the lodging of his application for asylum and he has received no decision on that application; or

(b) 6 months have elapsed since the lodging of his application for asylum and his appeal against refusal of asylum is disposed of.").

The noble Baroness said: This gives me the opportunity simply to say that I accept the Minister's assurances. I apologise for my attempt to try to say so too soon, when he spoke to this group of amendments. I am most grateful for those assurances and fully understand the points made by the noble Lord. I shall not move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 187ZZA not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 187ZA:
Page 70, line 20, after ("families)") insert ("or section 22 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (equivalent provision for Scotland)").
The noble Lord said: We turn now to quite an extensive group of amendments relating to Clause 113. The grouping includes Amendments Nos. 187ZA, 187A, 187B, 187BA, 187C, 187D, 188 and 188A. As we have followed this procedure in the past, perhaps it will be helpful if I speak to these amendments now. I should, of course, point out that my remarks are not intended to pre-empt anything which Members of the Committee may wish to say. I simply seek to set out our view on this group; otherwise, we may find ourselves in something of a muddle.
The provisions of Clause 113 are a little complex, although necessary. These amendments give me an opportunity to explain the working of the provisions. Under the new support arrangements, it will be the Home Secretary, rather than the local authority social services department, who is ordinarily responsible for meeting the accommodation and essential living needs of families. Local authorities cannot generally provide for those needs. But in all other respects, local authority social services departments will have the full range of responsibilities towards children and their families—for example, if a child had particular needs resulting from a disability or where a child was at risk. So asylum-seeking families can expect the same level of assistance as any other family, albeit from two different sources.
We are concerned to ensure that there is no gap in the sort of provision that may be made. We want the same arrangements to apply across the whole of the United Kingdom. Therefore, Amendments Nos. 187ZA and 187BA, which are government amendments, will extend the effect of the clause to Scottish law, on exactly the same basis as applies in England.
Perhaps I may now refer to Amendment No. 188, tabled in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Cope of Berkeley and Lord Alton. The reason for taking a regulation-making power in subsection (10) is to ensure that no gap can be opened up. This is a reserve power. However, if it transpires in the future that there is some essential service which is not being provided by the Secretary of State which a social services department is prevented from providing because it is classed as "assistance" under subsection (6) (which a local authority may not provide), we would want to make regulations removing that service from the general prohibition. As we ought to be able to have a seamless safety net, we thought that we should have this power available to us.
Amendments Nos. 187A, 187B, 187C and 187D, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, address a different concern; namely, what happens when the Secretary of State withdraws assistance? I believe that the circumstances in which accommodation would be withdrawn from a family are very few and far between. If we are faced with a "problem" family, we would try counselling, support and supervision. As a last resort, the sanction may have to be to withdraw accommodation being provided.
In those circumstances, Clause 113 provides that it is only the social services department for the area in which the "withdrawn" accommodation was located that
1582
can provide assistance—in the form of accommodation or essential living needs support—under Section 17 of the Children Act, in England. The reason for this is quite plain: we do not want families to be able to bring about an eviction so that they can then go to a social services department in a completely different part of the country, demanding to be accommodated in that area. That is the point of this provision.
The amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, would apply the same restrictions on which authority would be able to provide assistance with essential living needs, if this sort of support were withdrawn. So it could be provided only by the authority in whose area the family had previously been living. I cannot think of circumstances in which assistance by way of essential living needs would be withdrawn, other than if the family had some other source of income; for example, getting assets transferred from overseas, or, as my noble and learned friend said earlier, perhaps winning the lottery.
The restrictions that Clause 113 places on areas of residence are, essentially, to prevent the drift of asylum seekers back to the South East, if they want to be accommodated by the state. It has always been perfectly plain that, if asylum seekers want to make their own arrangements for accommodation—for example, by staying with friends or relatives—and seek only assistance with essential living needs, we are content to provide that, wherever they live. During such period as accommodation is to be provided if needed by the Secretary of State, and he is providing essential living needs support, there is no role for local authorities in providing those forms of support. Subsections (7) to (9) of the clause relate only to which authority is to provide support where accommodation is withdrawn to prevent, as I said, a drift back to the South East.
Amendment No. 187C would amend subsection (8) of this clause. Subsection (8) provides that, if the Secretary of State withdraws accommodation from an asylum-seeker family, only the local authority in whose area the family was previously residing can provide assistance under Section 17 of the Children Act. Amendment No. 187C would limit this further so that the local authority in question could only provide such assistance to the family unit rather than to the child on its own. That would mean that any local authority, not just the local authority in whose area the family was already residing, could provide assistance to a child separately from its family, where the Secretary of State had withdrawn support from the family. We do not think that such an amendment is necessary. Under the Bill as it stands, any local authority—I am happy to confirm this—would be able separately to support the child under Section 20 of the Children Act.
I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for raising the question of inspections in Amendment No. 188A. In taking over the functions that local authorities would otherwise have for the support of asylum-seeker families, we are taking on a serious responsibility. I agree with the noble Earl that proper standards need to be maintained. I am happy to tell him—I think that this derives from part of our earlier conversations—that we are actively considering, along

1583
with the Department of Health, what role the Social Services Inspectorate might play in monitoring the activities of the new asylum support directorate in respect of families, and providing advice. We—or our agents—shall, of course, advise local authorities of families placed within their area, and liaise with them where particular services are required. However, the inspectorate has an interest in maintaining standards nationally, and we feel that its inspection or monitoring, rather than that of the local authorities, is the best way forward. I hope that I have met a concern and that the Committee has found my comments helpful. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. He is right to say that Clause 113 is fairly complex. Therefore, we need to probe the implications of the four amendments in this group which stand in my name. The Minister has explained in what circumstances the provision of essential living needs in respect of a child might be withdrawn. The Minister has made it clear that there are few, if any, circumstances where the provisions of this clause would apply. However, will the Minister clarify whether—if such essential living needs are withdrawn—Section 17 assistance under the Children Act could be accessed?
My next point was mentioned in the other place. I refer to the circumstances under which accommodation might be withdrawn. Can the Minister give us any further information on that point? Will the Minister give an assurance that when access to Section 17 assistance is envisaged, this will be in respect of the child and his or her family, as provided for under Section 17, and that the child will be taken into care only as a last resort where that is deemed to be in the best interests of the child? As I say, I am grateful for the Minister's explanation of the amendments.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I too am grateful for the explanation of this group of amendments. Amendment No. 188 stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. In my view—I do not attempt to speak for the noble Lord—this is a probing amendment. We do not want to prevent the Secretary of State allowing local authorities to pick up a case if that should prove necessary. However, we were anxious to find out what the Government have in mind in this respect. That has been made fairly clear. It is important to have what I think the Minister described as "seamless assistance". The amendment helps to achieve that.
Amendment No. 188A concerns inspection. I believe that it is important that this new service should be inspected, although not necessarily precisely in the way suggested in the amendment. I believe that the Minister has made favourable noises in that respect for which we are grateful.
Lord Hylton: I should like to speak to this whole group of amendments. I do so particularly to welcome the letter from the Under-Secretary of State, Mr O'Brien, to
1584
UNICEF which was apparently dated 15th July. The key phrase in that letter was,
"No asylum seeker children will be removed from the provisions of the Children Act".
That is fine. I believe that it improves on another, slightly earlier letter from the Minister here to Llin Golding MP dated 30th June. In my view what we need is a clear boundary between what local authorities will be able to continue to do in this context and the work of the asylum support directorate. I do not think that vie can expect that directorate to have represented within it all the skills that now exist within children's departments. Children's departments are able to take what one might describe as a very holistic approach to children's needs. That is what we want to see continued in respect of asylum-seeking children.
The Earl of Sandwich: I think that everything has been said. I shall not seek to move Amendment No 188A which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Northbourne who, unfortunately, cannot be present and to whom we owe the original amendment. I was encouraged by the Minister's letter after we met him, and now by the confirmation that he has given.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I believe that there are two matters that I ought to deal with in response to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. First, I can confirm that subsection (8) of Clause 113 simply sets limits on which. authority can provide assistance in the form of accommodation and essential living needs under Section 17 of the Children Act. I am happy to repeat that the subsection does not limit the operation of that section.
Secondly, the rubric of Section 17 mentions,
"Provision of services for children in need, their families and others".
I believe that it is inherent in that provision that, if the relevant local authority feels that it is appropriate, it will continue to be able to make available accommodation for the whole family group. I agree with the noble Lord's observation—I think we all do—that taking a child into care in any circumstance ought to be the choice of last resort.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 187A and 187B not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 187BA:
Page 70, line 36, after ("1989") insert ("or section 22 of the Act of 1995").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 187C to 188A not moved.]
Clause 113, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 114 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 188B not moved.]
Clause 115 [Secretary of State to be corporation sole for purposes of Part VI]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 189:
Page 72, line 3, after ("State") insert ("while acting in England and Wales").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 189 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 190. The Committee will have noticed that the amendments stand not only in my name but also in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Drumadoon. The Committee may be of the impression that the amendments concern Scottish legal points, in which case the Committee is correct.
I am advised that Amendment No. 189 might be considered necessary to clarify that the provisions in the clause do not apply in Scotland—or, for that matter, Northern Ireland—where the law is rather different. The amendment seeks to make clear that a corporation sole is a characteristic of the English legal system and has no corresponding provision in the Scottish legal system.
Amendment No. 190 seeks to ensure that the provisions of the subsection extend to moveable property in addition to real or personal property. From a Scottish point of view, it was again thought that the amendment would fill a gap in the drafting of the statute. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am grateful for that explanation. In this group of amendments we find Amendments Nos. 189, 189A and 190. With regard to the Scottish and Northern Ireland question, as it were, which the noble Lord raised, we have given a great deal of thought to the matter. As the noble Lord indicated, the amendment would have the effect of disapplying for Northern Ireland the concept of the Secretary of State as a corporation sole. I did not assume that that is what it was seeking. In the context of the Northern Ireland jurisdiction the concept has application and meaning. For that reason alone I would invite the noble Lord in due time not to press the amendment.
I understood from the noble Lord that he was raising the fundamental question of the concept of the corporation sole in Scotland. He is quite right, Scottish law does not have such a concept but its rules of private international law recognise bodies which are corporations sole under the law of another country. I think that is the answer to that conundrum. That is what Clause 115(1) does for England, Wales and Northern Ireland; it creates the Secretary of State a corporation sole for those countries. The purpose is to give continuity to the exercise of his functions under Part VI for holding property and making contracts. It is not needed for Scotland, and Clause 115(1) as framed does not have the effect of introducing the concept into Scotland.
There have been precedents. For example, the Data Protection Registrar, whose functions extend throughout the United Kingdom, was created a corporation sole in Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act 1984, and her successor, in the form of the Data Protection Commissioner, continues as a corporation sole under Schedule 5 of the Data Protection Act 1988. The Secretary of State for Employment, who has jurisdiction throughout Great Britain, is a corporation sole under Schedule 5 to the Employment Act 1989. I do not think there have been any explanations, but that is the reason for it.
1586
Amendment No. 189A speaks for itself. It seeks to insert:
"property, real or personal, heritable or moveable".
I think the amendment is wide enough to cover everything the noble Lord, Lord Cope, wished to cover with Amendment No. 190 and probably goes a little further. As we have gone further than he asked, I would ask him not to press that amendment either.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: That sounded a most reasonable explanation. I shall ensure that it is considered by those who know more than I do about these matters. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Gardner of Parkes): In calling Amendment No. 189A, I should inform the Committee that if the amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 190.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 189A:
Page 72, line 5, leave out ("real or personal property") and insert ("property, real or personal, heritable or moveable,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 190 not moved.]
Clause 115, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 116 to 118 agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby moved Amendment No. 190XA:
Before Clause 119, insert the following new clause—
CODES OF PRACTICE
(" .—(1) The Secretary of State for the Home Department shall issue a codes of practice in connection with the exercise by immigration officers, or any other persons, of the powers contained in this Part of this Act to—

(a) search for and arrest persons, enter and search premises and search persons held in detention;

(b) seize and retain material found on persons or premises;

(c) fingerprint.

(2) Any person exercising powers under this Part of this Act shall be bound by a disciplinary code, which shall be attached to the said codes.
(3) A failure on the part of an immigration officer or other said person to abide by any of the provisions of the codes shall raise a presumption against the admissibility of any evidence obtained in exercise of the powers contained in this Part of this Act in any hearing before a court or tribunal.
(4) A failure to abide by the procedures contained within the codes shall also lead to disciplinary charges being laid against the immigration officer or other person concerned.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 190XA I shall, following the lead of the Government Front Bench, pre-empt Amendment No. 195C, and my noble friend Lord Dholakia will speak to Amendment No. 190YA. He has quite wide experience of the Police Complaints Authority, with which the amendment has certain parallels.
This is an important group of amendments which concern the issue of the code of practice for immigration officers and the system for dealing with complaints about their behaviour. The amendments deal with major powers. The powers are so major that they have been of considerable concern to civil liberties organisations in this country because they are so far-reaching.
Perhaps I should briefly mention the kinds of powers that immigration officers are to be given. Clause 122 concerns their right to enter and search premises in relation to immigration offences; they will have the right to fingerprint individuals; they will have the right to seize documentation and, in some instances, to insist upon the provision of personal data. They are very sweeping powers. Unlike the powers in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, they are not restricted to investigating serious crime. The powers take in a wide range of offences, some of which are difficult to describe as major offences.
Understandably, we are concerned that there should be a proper framework, including a code of practice and a complaints system. We recognise two factors in that regard. First, it is vital that there is confidence in the operation of immigration officials; that people not only in our own community but those in the immigrant and asylum seeker communities will broadly recognise that immigration officials are attempting to do their job fairly, decently and as well as they possibly can. We recognise that those who work for the Home Office as immigration officials will welcome the protection that a code of practice will give them, in much the same way as the police have done under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. Obviously, primary legislation cannot lay down the detail of the powers arid rights that an immigration officer has in pursuing his duties.
Secondly, we think that any code of practice should be related back to a disciplinary code—again as it is in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act—so that if an immigration officer's behaviour is not in line with the code of practice it will lead to the instigation of disciplinary procedures. In very serious instances it could lead to a police investigation, but we are not currently dealing with that matter.
So far as concerns the whole area of a code of practice, there will be particular difficulties with regard to the communities with which immigration officers will have to deal. We have talked at length in Committee about the fact that such communities are in many ways more difficult and more fraught with suspicions and fears than the communities with which the police normally deal. There are also additional factors of lack of understanding of the language; cultural differences; and mental illness, of which there is a higher incidence among refugees and asylum seekers than in the population of the United Kingdom as a whole. Not least, it is worth referring to the genuine fear that many asylum seekers feel when faced with someone who appears to be an agent of the state—because their own experience of agents of the state was often one of extreme concern and extreme apprehension.
So the various duties that fall to the immigration officer as a result of the Bill are extremely complex,
1588
extremely difficult and require great sensitivity. That is why we believe that Amendments Nos. 190XA and 190YA are of crucial importance.
I turn to why we believe that Amendment No. 190)CA provides a much better basis for a code of practice and a related disciplinary code than Amendment No. 195C tabled by the Government. First, we believe that the link that Amendment No. 195C indicates between any code of practice for immigration officers and the code of practice that relates to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act is, to say the least, troubling. I have already explained one of the reasons for that—the different communities with which both sets of officers deal—but I add to that that Amendment No. 195C suggests, under subsection (3):
"Any specified provision of a code may have effect for the purposes of this section subject to such modifications as may be specified".
The code concerned under subsection (3) appears to encompass the Police and Criminal Evidence Act codes. The modifications will be such as the Secretary of State determines and the word "specified" appears to relate to his directions. I believe that that means, if I have read and understood the wording of Amendment No. 195C correctly, that we shall be dealing with the PACE codes—the Police and Criminal Evidence Act codes—modified by what one can describe only as relatively sweeping powers by the Home Secretary.
We have already said that we do not believe that those codes are appropriate to the different communities with which immigration officers have to deal. I add to that our concern that under subsection (3) there appear to be wide powers, without any specific indication as to what those powers are, to make modifications. We ask the Minister to say more about how those modifications may be put before an affirmative procedure of Parliament.
Secondly, we are concerned that the powers given to immigration officers under Clause 132 also allow the finger-printing of individuals who have not—I repeat, who have not—committed any criminal offence. By itself that concerns us on the grounds of civil liberties, but if the provision is to be retained, in our view there must at least be specific reference in the codes to it. Those references would be different from the references in the PACE codes on finger-printing, which are more limited.
Thirdly, there are likely to be many women and children caught within the area of immigration offences or in the families of those involved in immigration offences. Therefore, again that community will demand much more sensitivity than in the case of the PACE codes, although those are certainly important.
Lastly, the broad Civil Service disciplinary code does not deal with the relations between civil servants—in this case immigration officers—and the people with whom they shall deal outside the Civil Service. The helpful information provided in another place included an extract from the Home Office staff handbook at paragraph 17.2. That was provided in a letter to Mr John Maxton, Member of Parliament, by the Parliamentary

1589
Under-Secretary of State in another place. Paragraph 17.2, described as,
"Behaviour likely to attract disciplinary action",
refers to such matters as poor timekeeping, breaches of staff rules, being unfit for duty through drunkenness, and rather strikingly, false statements in expense claims. However, I see no reference to any behaviour likely to attract disciplinary action that relates to the treatment of people with whom the officer concerned has to deal.
On those grounds, we feel that neither the PACE codes nor the disciplinary procedures so far laid down meet the special and sensitive needs of the immigration community. We do not believe that they meet the particular problems that arise from the sweeping powers concerned with people who have committed no criminal offences at all, and we do not believe that they deal adequately with a community comprising many women and children who may be the subject of the attention of immigration officers.
Therefore, in moving the amendment, we ask whether the Minister can address the questions of the distinction between the two codes and the distinction between the two sets of disciplinary systems. I also ask the Minister to consider the remarks that will be made, complementary to mine, by my noble colleague with regard to the complaints procedures. I beg to move.
Lord Dholakia: My noble friend Lady Williams talked about the need for a code of practice. I shall concentrate on Amendment No. 190YA which concerns the need for an immigration complaints authority.
The Minister has been open about his area of responsibilities. A good example is prisons, on which so much information is now available to the public and to those who ask questions. I feel that that is right. If one wants to build confidence in a system, it is right and proper that the system must be subject to scrutiny and open in terms of the information required by ordinary people who fairly frequently complain about the treatment they receive.
We believe that when a group of civil servants and others are given such wide-ranging powers, which threaten to breach basic rights to privacy, 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 also be empowered to carry out its own investigations using 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.
1590
I make no criticism of the three or four individuals involved in immigration audit. In fact, they perform a useful task. However, I shall explain why that particular procedure is not appropriate. It lacks the capability and objectivity to investigate sensitive complaints against the immigration service staff and to institute swift action to eradicate malpractice before it takes root. Moreover, it is not of sufficient weight to counter-balance the inroads in civil liberties being introduced by Part VII of the Bill by ensuring that individual rights are not sacrificed for the sake of public police considerations without consideration of the individual facts of each case.
I believe that the complaints audit committee is limited in its scope for investigating complaints arising out of the powers contained in Part VII of the Bill. When the independent audit committee was established, Mr Charles Wardle, the Under-Secretary of State, said in another place:
"The Committee's remit will be to satisfy itself as to the effectiveness of the procedures for investigating complaints"—
I repeat, it is about the procedures for investigating complaints, not the investigation itself—and,
"to draw IND management's attention to any weaknesses, and to make an annual report to the Secretary of State.
No one disputes that an effective complaints system is vital in terms of maintaining confidence in the operation of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. The problem is that the procedures are to be examined by the complaints audit committee, but the procedures themselves are to be implemented by means of an internal complaints procedure. In other words, there is no independent element. The service oversees itself in terms of the complaints levelled against it.
The total number of complaints must be a matter for concern in view of the millions of passengers who are dealt with at airports, including those who claim asylum seeker status. Figures published last year indicate that no more than 105 complaints were received. It may be said that that effectively proves that there are not many complaints. But the procedure is not well known. If people do not know that such a procedure exists, how often are they going to complain? The figures indicate an increase of 52 per cent in the complaints received as compared with the figures for 1996. So more complaints are received now than were received in previous years. The figures also indicate that in some 50 per cent of completed cases the complaints are wholly or partially substantiated. So, of those who did find out about the complaints mechanism, at least half had their complaints substantiated.
It may be interesting to examine a similarity under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act regarding provision for complaints against police officers. Let us remember that in many cases the powers of immigration officers are close to those given to the police under PACE. When in opposition, the present Home Secretary, 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

1591
proper that there should be an independent complaints committee which can examine complaints against the immigration service. But beyond that we also need to establish that the process is not restricted merely to complaints lodged in this country. Much of the procedure applies to operations abroad, at British High Commissions and British embassies which are responsible for issuing documentation such as visas and entry certificates to those who come to this country. It is right that those officers are also brought under the scrutiny of such an independent commission. It is part of the process of building confidence among communities here. It is right and proper that an independent machinery should exist. That will help not only the complainants, but also those officers who repeatedly have to perform a very difficult task. The fact that they could be scrutinised and checked would be to their advantage. I commend the proposal to the Committee.
7 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia has made some interesting points on Amendment No. 190YA relating to the complaints authority. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply. I merely want to say a word about the other two amendments in this group, Amendment No. 190XA in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and government Amendment No. 195C.
The Minister's answer regarding a code of practice is to put in place the code that operates under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. That seems a very appropriate way of dealing with the matter. The noble Baroness said that immigrants and asylum seekers who will be affected by the strong powers in this part of the Bill are not criminals. Of course they are not. Nor are those who are dealt with under PACE—they are people who are suspected of crimes. The police and those who are dealt with under PACE are covered by the police code of practice. After all, immigration officers deal with people who are suspected of having no right to be in this country. In some cases—
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. My point was simply that the powers regarding search and seizure are, in the case of PACE, restricted to suspicion of offences of a very serious nature. Some of the offences listed under the Bill are of a much less serious nature.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I shall let the Minister respond to that point in detail. I am not sure that I entirely accept the noble Baroness's point as she expresses it. PACE applies right across the activities of the police in dealing with people who are suspected of even quite small crimes in many cases. Aspects of PACE apply to those who are detained for one reason or another in police cells, just as the code will apply to immigrants who are detained in the appropriate circumstances, which will be to some extent equivalent.
The noble Baroness drew attention to the power in subsection (3) of the proposed new clause regarding the modifications that may be necessary to deal with the
1592
specific aspects relating to immigration cases. As I understand it, the provision will be subject to the negative procedure under the Bill as it stands. The noble Baroness had a good point in suggesting that it might be more appropriate if the affirmative procedure were to be used. That, so far as I know, is not presently proposed by the Government as the new clause stands. Perhaps it should be.
I did not check before entering the Chamber and I cannot recall whether the PACE code is subject to the affirmative or negative procedure when it is modified. I believe it is the affirmative procedure, but I may be wrong; I do not have firm information. Clearly, whatever parliamentary procedure applies to adjustments of PACE and alterations made from time to time to the PACE code of practice would also be appropriate for any modifications to be made to PACE to allow it to fit more accurately the circumstances of immigration officers.
On the whole, PACE has worked well so far as the police are concerned over the considerable period since its introduction—during which time it has been improved. Bearing that fact in mind, even if there were to be a separate code of practice for immigration officers in regard to these very strong powers, it ought to be closely based on PACE. The process of osmosis may not be entirely complete on this occasion. Nevertheless, the Minister may think it appropriate to respond now.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I appreciate the thinking behind Amendments Nos. 190XA arid 190YA. Immigration officers must be clearly accountable for their actions in exercising these new powers; and there must be an effective complaints system. I do not believe that Amendment No. 190XA is now required, bearing in mind government Amendment No. 195C. I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley.
Amendment No. 195C allows that the Secretary of State may bring immigration officers under the auspices of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act codes of practice. That plainly must be so. Immigration officers are already required to have regard to PACE codes when investigating offences by virtue of Section 67(9) of the Act. If the government amendment is accepted by the Committee, it will ensure that immigration officers exercising powers of entry, search and seizure under Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 will have to have regard to the PACE codes in the same way.
In reply to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, it is important to bear in mind that the PACE codes govern not only the exercise of the statutory powers but the manner in which police officers are obliged to conduct their duties. Immigration officers will be no different. If an immigration officer breaches any applicable requirements of the code, he or she will be accountable and subject to discipline. I believe that every aspect of the immigration officer's use of these new powers is covered.
It seems to us that the advantages of making immigration officers adhere to PACE codes are quite significant. As the noble Lord, Lord Cope, pointed out,

1593
the PACE codes have been in existence for a very long time and are well known and widely circulated. They are known and understood by the legal profession and the courts. We should have one set of codes to ensure consistency when police and immigration officers work either alongside each other or independently. I believe that it would be wrong effectively to have police and immigration officers doing the same job in those circumstances but working to different rules. We intend to ensure that any failure to comply with the codes will render an immigration officer liable to disciplinary procedures. As to the admissibility or otherwise of evidence, it should be a matter for the court to decide in the particular case, as at present.
I turn to Amendment No. 190YA. This proposes the establishment of an independent immigration complaints authority. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, is quite right. The Complaints Audit Committee was set up in 1994 to monitor the investigation of complaints. The noble Lord is also right to say that its members are appointed by the Home Secretary. They are required to meet certain criteria; namely, they must have 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 comments on the quality of those investigations and their conclusions. If necessary, they have access to Ministers. They are required to produce an annual report for the Secretary of State, and the Home Office is obliged to respond to the committee's recommendations and criticisms. In May of this year, we placed in the Libraries of both Houses a paper detailing the existing complaints procedures. The paper also outlines further measures that we intend to take to strengthen the existing procedures.
Briefly, we intend to treat complaints arising from the exercise of the new powers separately from others. A small team of specially trained officers—probably three or four—will be required to have knowledge of enforcement law and practice, and PACE codes. The Complaints Audit Committee will scrutinise each complaint as soon as possible after receipt and take the following action: first, agree the manner in which it is to be investigated; secondly, monitor progress; and, thirdly, ensure that investigation of the complaint receives the right degree of attention and priority. We intend to review those procedures after one year to ensure that they are working satisfactorily.
I stress that if a criminal offence is alleged, it will be referred to the police and that such action as it and the Crown Prosecution Service consider necessary will follow. Therefore, these powers will be carefully regulated by a stringent monitoring apparatus. Officers will be fully accountable for their actions.
In relation to Amendment No. 195C, the noble Baroness asked about the modifications under subsection (3). I can reassure her that the modifications are simply those which are necessary to adapt the PACE codes for the purposes of the specific powers in Part
1594
VII. There is nothing sinister in it. One simply has the ability to adapt the present PACE codes for the Part VII powers. Therefore, there will be no difference in effect.
Community groups will be consulted via existing police consultative groups. PACE places on investigating officers a number of duties. Further, PACE does not apply simply to serious offences but to a very wide range of alleged criminal activities.
We believe that the powers in Part VII are consistent with those available to the police under PACE. We have tried to ensure that the new powers go no further than PACE. The thinking behind Part VII is that these powers should be available to immigration officers rather than the latter having to depend on the police. Originally, a small number of immigration officers—perhaps 15 or 20—will be charged with these duties following proper training.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, is correct to say that complaints are small in number compared with the 18,000 to 20,000 complaints against the police. I take his point that if a person does not know that he can complain, he is not likely to complain. He and I know perfectly well that the facility to complain is advertised in police stations. That is something to which I should like to give consideration.
We believe that our solution is the better one. We hope that the Committee will agree that our Amendment No. 195C is the way forward. It is important to incorporate PACE and to provide training. I believe that in that way we shall have a more structured discipline and complaints system. On the basis of those explanations, I hope that these amendments will not be pressed and that the Government's Amendment No. 195C will be accepted.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: Perhaps I may press the Minister a little further. Earlier I raised the question of decisions taken by entry clearance officers or immigration officers seconded to British posts abroad. How will complaints against those individuals be dealt with under the existing procedures?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I do not believe that they fall within any PACE codes, because the circumstances are wholly different. Perhaps I may think about that question and write to the noble Lord. That is something to which I have not put my mind in the context of PACE.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I may have misled the Committee by not being sufficiently clear. I thought I said that my understanding was that the power to search and seize premises under PACE was limited to relatively serious offences, such as manslaughter, murder and so on, but that in the context of this Bill it would include considerably less serious offences attracting a much lower penalty than would be the case for very serious offences. I did not intend to say that PACE did not deal with a wide range of minor offences. For that reason, I said that this considerable power was very much more constrained by the PACE codes of practice than it would be under the Bill.

1595
One of the matters about which we are concerned is that the modification of PACE to take account of the very different community which will be affected by the powers of immigration officers may be a very complex operation, such that the understanding of those powers by both sides may be even more difficult than it is today. That was why we were unhappy with the idea of simply modifying the PACE codes. Indeed, a good deal of PACE would be irrelevant to the code of practice for immigration officers.
I have taken note of the Minister's comments and remain profoundly concerned. This is a community which will find it difficult to understand the operations of immigration officers in the way that one would expect the resident UK community to understand the operations of police officers. I reiterate that many of these people will have had very painful, even violent, episodes in the past involving police officers in other places and countries. We believe that that must be taken into account.
Having heard the Minister, we are grateful for his observations. At this stage, we shall withdraw the amendment, but we may wish to hear more on Report. We cannot give an absolute commitment that we shall not return to this issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 119 [Arrest without warrant]:
[Amendments Nos. 190ZA to 190ZAA not moved.]
Clause 119 agreed to.
Clause 120 [Search and arrest by warrant]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 191:
Page 75, line 1, leave out ("or a justice of the peace").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 192 and 193. They all refer to the same simple point dealing with Scotland. With a name like "John Cope" I hesitate to speak for Scotland. It has been suggested to me that at least in Scotland it would be appropriate if the sheriff, who is a legally qualified judicial official, were the person to grant a warrant authorising an immigration officer or a constable to enter premises for the purpose of searching for and arresting individuals. That is worth suggesting to the Committee.
Amendment No. 192 makes essentially the same point as does Amendment No. 193 concerning entering and searching premises. The question is at what level of judicial rank the warrants should be authorised and whether they should be left to the lay justices of the peace in Scotland or referred always to the sheriff. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I shall reply to the three amendments. The noble Lord is quite right. These provisions would mean that a warrant could not be issued in Scotland except by a sheriff. In other words, the power of the justices of the peace in Scotland would be taken away. They issue warrants regularly in the context of making warrants for arrest, search and entry. For instance, they have been carrying out that provision
1596
under the immigration legislation of 1991 and 1996 to allow police constables to enter, search and arrest for immigration offences.
Clauses 120 and 122 will allow immigration officers, as well as police officers, to execute warrants. Justices in Scotland also grant warrants to agencies other than the police. They give them to Customs and Excise and the utility services. They are given guidance and training covering all their duties. I have had no detail put to me of any operational difficulties.
The helpful nature of the justices of the peace is that they are local. They are accessible outside routine hours and give valuable assistance to the police. If there was a perceived need for additional guidance, that could easily be provided. We do not see any reason to differ from the existing accepted practices in relation to warrants for entry, search and arrest in relation to immigration offences. There would be a different level of scrutiny in Scotland from that which applied elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I believe that the justices in Scotland have discharged their duties with care and therefore I am unable to accept or support these amendments.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: That was a very full explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 192 and 192A not moved.]
Clause 120 agreed to.
Clause 121 agreed to.
Clause 122 [Entry and search of premises]:
[Amendment No. 193 not moved.]
Clause 122 agreed to.
Lord Burlison: I beg to move that the House do now resume. Perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Environmental Technologies
7.25 p.m.
Lord Wade of Chorlton Lord Wade of Chorlton rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they provide an appropriate level of support for the export of United Kingdom environmental technologies and services.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should explain my interest in environmental technology by stating that I am chairman of a company called Enterprise Business Solutions, which is a business service company that helps many environmental companies. I am president of the Combined Heat and Power Association, which is one of our most important environmental technologies. I am chairman of NIMTECH, which is an organisation which manages government programmes, many of which support environmental technology
Among other things, NIMTECH is also an organisation which supports the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation (UNIDO) in the United Kingdom. It is interesting to note that UNIDO programmes are now developed to integrate three elements of sustainable development: making industries more competitive; creating productive employment; and minimising the impact of industry on the environment. They emphasise the importance of developing countries having the full advantage of environmental technology to drive forward their sustainable energy policies. I believe that they also recognise that one of the main drivers of economic development is now the SME sector, developing countries' own small business economies. That is why in a sense we also need to emphasise the importance of our SMEs in developing contacts with developing countries. It is a point that I shall refer to later.
The Joint Environmental Marketing Unit of the United Kingdom Government estimates that the environmental technology and service global market was worth at least 280 billion dollars per annum in 1997. It is forecast to increase to about 335 billion dollars by the year 2000 and to 640 billion dollars by 2010.
The truth of the matter is that our competitors are taking a much greater share of the growing market. Our share is falling. Our main competitors, the United States of America, Germany and Japan, are now taking a larger share of that enormous business opportunity. I refer here to how the leaders of our industry, in terms of innovative technology, are in the small and medium-sized business sector. So their needs and abilities to take advantage of some of the major opportunities is very different from that of the large companies which have their own development resources and export facilities.
It is important that the British Government support the needs of the SMEs in that regard. Such companies need very particular encouragement to take export risks. It is no easy task for a small company to set out on an adventure to a foreign country, with all the unknown costs associated with it, and approach a person one has never seen or heard of before and do not really understand. I did that when I started my own export business in the food industry in the late 1970s. One needs to be something of an adventurer to cope with it. It is important that such people are supported and encouraged to do that very important job.
I can see a need for the United Kingdom to provide more support for exhibitions, demonstrations, lectures and presentations in those areas of the world which are now crying out for new and innovative environmental technology. The JEMU statement of 1997 identified a range of important countries throughout the world as potential markets for development. No doubt that was correct. But it is one thing to have a programme; it is quite another to encourage individual businesses to take those risks.
The company to which I referred, NIMTECH, recently ran a European funded project which we called Environet 2000. It took place in the north-west of
1598
England. It was a scheme through which we could support 80 manufacturing companies by providing the right consultants to help them understand their environmental needs, and how they might improve their environmental structures and make money in the process. The project took about two and a half years, and we were able to identify in each company considerable savings. They were relatively small companies. Those companies were able to achieve savings of £3,000 to £50,000 a year by having an outside person identify where they could make more money by improving their environmental technologies and services.
Such a project could he undertaken on a wider scale. DfID could use its money and resources to select areas where we could demonstrate to selected companies how their profitability and employment opportunities could be improved by support from UK environmental technology. The scheme promoted best practice, an important key activity.
Great success has been achieved in this country through environmental demonstration sites from which businessmen can learn the advantages of environmental technology and the range of wonderful technologies that are available. We now have businesses which can solve problems which people did not realise existed; apart from the fact that we can find solutions to problems which people often considered intractable and difficult to deal with. Demonstration units would seem an enormous advantage.
My company has had great success in running specialist enviroenergy and environmental technology seminars at which we gain enormous support from small businesses which wish to learn how they can improve environmental issues and make more money from the process. Such seminars are well supported by the industry, which wishes to sell its technology to new customers.
I should like the Government to develop specific items containing clear policies which enable us to get closer to the small companies in this field. The members of the Environmental Industries Commission export services—it has the lead role outside Government on these matters—have identified a number of areas. These include financial support for feasibility studies, and business plans in overseas markets. They would be of enormous advantage in encouraging small companies. There is need for financial support for tendering costs, which can be heavy for a company, and opportunity may or may not result.
A fresh appraisal of financial support is important. Assistance with project finance is a frequently mentioned need in this field. Other governments who are competitors provide examples of such support. Major UK contractors deal with some of the largest construction development sites in the world. But most respond to tenders developed in their own countries. When putting together the tenders, they are often unaware of the technology available to them from the UK. We could do more as a country to encourage early contacts through UNIDO on potential large projects of which our embassies and the people working in those

1599
countries are aware. At an early stage in the development of those projects we could give a presentation on how our technology could help them improve their plans.
An environmental technology newsletter has been suggested which could be made available to our embassies and businesses throughout the world. It was suggested to me that it could be made available on airlines. Many businessmen are avid readers of information which will help their companies grow and develop.
I am aware of the resources and benefits which the Government already provide in this field. In recent years, the Joint Environmental Marketing Unit has made tremendous strides in supporting environmental energies and technologies. But I seek to draw attention to the fact that the opportunities of this market place far exceed the resources now going into it. There is much anecdotal evidence that we are not taking advantage of this great market. We are not marketing the skills available in the UK for the development of the potential opportunities. I ask the Government to look again at the issue. I shall be grateful for the Minister's views. Do the Government feel satisfied that the industry is grasping the opportunities now before us?
7.36 p.m.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wade of Chorlton, for his introduction to this Question. It is an important issue close to my heart. As a keen environmentalist in the early 1970s, I remember being laughed at for saying that the environment was important and that we should take great care of it. Perhaps my generation has now reached the point where we can do something about it. I believe that we are missing out on a considerable commercial bonanza which not only has tremendous commercial possibilities but also holds the promise of enabling Britain to take the lead in giving effect to the decisions and promises taken and made at Rio and Kyoto.
It is clear from the material provided by the Environmental Industries Commission that the industry feels that the answer to the noble Lord's Question is no at present. But we hope that that will change. I believe that I am right in saying that the majority of the wind power devices used in the United Kingdom are made in Denmark. This underlines the problem. If we are not even supplying our home market, it is difficult to see how we can successfully compete in exporting to other countries.
Environmental technologies and services are a new sector which is expanding rapidly as developing countries seek to avoid the mistakes made and the environmental problems caused in countries which became industrialised before the problems were known about.
One of the most startling statistics I heard recently is that we use 7,000 years of accumulated energy capital in the form of fossil fuels every day. It is the growing awareness of this kind of statistic and the disadvantages of using fossil fuels that is driving the demand for environmentally neutral or even beneficial technologies in many parts of the world.
1600
One area of increasing concern is the contamination of groundwater in many developing countries where one would least expect to find that problem. This; means that there will be a greater and greater demand for the technical expertise in which Britain excels.
I know from my visits to the Sudan of the intense interest there in renewable energy. This ranges from bio-gas to solar energy, and there is growing interest in rolling back the desert. The Sahara is advancing by a number of miles every year. Each time I visit I am reproached for the decline in the interest taken by British industry and the DTI in that country. I hope that the renewal of diplomatic relations will change that. I know that in some countries of Africa, we have an active commercial section in the high commission or embassy.
It is sad that we appear to be missing out on a new industry. As the noble Lord, Lord Wade, said, to a remarkable degree it consists of small companies. Such companies do not have the manpower or resources to be able to engage in export promotion on their own account. I have a particular suggestion to make. The DTI could establish an environmental technologies export promotion website. That would make the increasing number of people in developing countries who look to Britain for a lead and opportunity to discover what we are doing, even if we do not go and tell them ourselves.
Although these issues apply to many other sectors of the UK industry, the ETS sector can claim special attention because of the Government's specific interest in tackling global environmental issues. Robin Cook spoke about that to the Green Alliance; on Britain, the Global Environment. The recent launch of the climate change challenge fund is a welcome initiative in this context, but such support needs to be widened to encompass a broader range of environmental sectors and natural instruments. The ETS sector is also fragmented with a large number of small and medium-sized enterprises which need help to tackle the global market.
7.41 p.m.
Lord Lewis of Newnham: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wade, for initiating the debate. The problems in the environment are of central public interest. Although much of what I want to say has already been said by the two previous speakers, I want to emphasise one or two points. Before doing so, I must declare an interest as the honorary president of the Environmental Industries Commission which is responsible for overviewing and co-ordinating much of the industrial side of the industry. Its paper on Winning in the Global Environmental Markets, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Wade, is an important document which emphasises many of the problems which we face.
The recognition and removal of pollution from society places severe challenges on both science and technology. The problem involves initially the detection of the pollution; the measurement of the extent and range of the contamination; and, finally, the removal and possibly the monitoring of the pollutant. All those techniques are somewhat specialised and each demands

1601
a considerable difference in approach. When one looks at that intellectual cocktail, one can see the requirement for a tremendous amount of experience and information in order to deal with the problems.
Initially, pollution problems were identified at a local level and have now become a global factor. If we compound that by the environmental legislation of the past three decades, we see that an important and large industry had been developed. As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Wade, we are talking about an industry which has a calculated turnover of about 300 billion dollars per annum, rising in the next decade to about 600 billion dollars.
The UK has been making good progress in this market. That has been done with certain help from the Government. However, our main competitors—the USA, Germany and Japan—are moving at a faster rate than the UK. All those countries benefit from more significant government support than the UK industries. The USA is now the world's largest exporter of environmental technology and services.
On a recent visit to the USA, I was impressed by how much collaboration exists between government, industry and universities. For instance, the EPA and the USA Department of Agriculture are working with industry and universities on the production of a low-cost, reliable and easy-to-operate water treatment plant. That has been done in conjunction with the Mexican authorities. I remind noble Lords that in Mexico 90 per cent of water treatment plants are out of operation. Water treatment is a major problem which applies to all the developing countries. It has been argued that the present water situation in the developing world is a crisis equivalent to the oil crisis of the 1970s.
Not only are we dealing with what is commercially a beneficial operation, but with a highly desirable prospect in many parts of the world. Clearly the scope and potential of the industry is vast and we must do all that we can to encourage the UK's contribution to this industry. A range of support has been suggested, of which I agree with some elements as regards promotion and development. That can be accomplished by a variety of mechanisms, including feasibility studies, joint ventures and project financing which must appear high on the list of priorities in order to allow for a fair assessment of what is happening in the world at large.
One of the main difficulties, as has already been emphasised, relates to tendering for projects. Limited resources are often associated with the suppliers of environmental technology and services, especially with regard to overseas projects. Such firms tend to be SMEs and often they are dissuaded by the magnitude of many of the projects. Government funding concerns itself with projects of the order of £50 million and above. That is out of the category of consideration for many SMEs.
The problem is further complicated by the delay and expense of tendering. That was well illustrated to me when I visited eastern Europe as a member of the House of Lords Sub-Committee C of the European Communities Committee which was investigating the PHARE programme. The considerable environmental
1602
problems in that part of Europe were further complicated by the time-lag and bureaucracy of the EU procedures in Brussels, a point which we emphasised in our report. That delay and the mass of paperwork involved has a very negative effect on encouraging applications from SMEs in this country. The expense of being involved in a failed application often makes applications in this area difficult to justify.
I admit that although the problems outlined are not unique to this section of UK industry, I believe that the potential financial advantage to be gained by this sector and the general impact of environmental problems and thinking on the Community warrant special attention to this area.
It is perhaps important to say that much government legislation on the environment has been 80 per cent directed from the EU. Many of the problems which we encounter have an equal applicability across the EU as a whole, leading potentially to a very large market.
Recent changes in the regulations on waste disposal, with the reduction in the amount of biodegradable waste to about 65 per cent for landfill sites, have been interpreted as leading to a major increase in the incineration of waste and an increase in the number of incinerators, from about 10 in this country to about 150. Although we may have a special problem in this area, there will inevitably have to be major investment in incineration capacity throughout the whole of Europe. That is only one illustration of what is happening in environmental technologies with regard to waste and the potential for industry.
I stress my belief that that is typical of the many problems which will result from EU directives and which will place the industry at a premium. We must ensure that it is viable and able to benefit from this potential growth. Money spent now will be a major investment for the future.
7.50 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wade, on initiating this timely debate. As we have heard, the environmental technologies represent a large market, at the moment growing by as much as 5 per cent a year. The UK came late to this market. If we look back to the early 1980s, tough legislation in Germany on acid rain prompted German firms to develop technologies in terms of "scrubbing" and flue gas emissions which led to their dominating the market by the end of that decade. When we came to put in our own equipment, we had to import it from Germany.
Similarly, the United States developed catalytic converters. Tough regulations stimulated firms in the United States to develop the technology and they led the world in it. We heard earlier that Denmark is now exporting windmills to us. One lesson to be learnt from this is that tough environmental standards may impose costs in the short run, but in the long term there are benefits in terms of the environmental quality of life. If a firm sees an opportunity, there are benefits to be gained from those who get in early.

1603
From these Benches, as is well known, we have for a long time argued that environmental issues should be taken seriously. Even if the predictions of global warming and climate change are sometimes over-pessimistic, with increasing numbers of people on the planet—all aspiring and acquiring more goods and services, especially motor cars—quality of life alone demands that we take seriously the harm that untrammelled industrialisation may do. Modern technologies enable us, and others, to move forward in ways which are now much more environmentally friendly and which limit the degradation done to the planet. It is essential that we use and promote the new technologies as best we can—not just for ourselves but also for those countries embarking on the process of industrialisation. Indeed I think it is vital that such countries do not follow the route to industrialisation that we and other apparently advanced technology countries have followed. That will lead to further degradation of the planet.
We should recognise that all those countries offer very considerable opportunities. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wade, that there are enormous opportunities for export to these markets, both in the developed countries and in the developing nations of the world. What can the Government do to help promote the technologies and help those companies seeking to develop them? One route is undoubtedly to ensure that the Government promote the market for such technologies in the UK itself. Regulations and standards are an important instrument in promoting new technologies, be they for car emissions, unleaded petrol or home insulation. A strong home market is one of the best bases from which to export.
That message applies not only to the Government's own procurement programme but also to the procurement programmes of local authorities. It is important to stimulate them to seek out the most environmentally friendly kinds of technologies. We have heard that many of the firms involved are small and medium-sized businesses. They need help both in developing the technology and in developing their links to export markets.
The current EU fifth framework programme devotes a great deal of its resources to the development of new and more environmentally friendly technologies. Key actions within the programme include developing high quality innovative programmes and services that meet the needs of the citizen and the market, especially technologies which reduce resource utilisation and promote the re-use and recycling of resources. Many new projects and initiatives are being instigated under the programme which are of direct interest to such firms.
The European Union has gone out of its way to make programmes of that kind accessible to small and medium-sized businesses. Technology transfer centres have now been established across the whole of the United Kingdom. The CRAFT programme is especially geared to helping small and medium-sized firms apply to join these programmes. Having joined them, they are linked up both with larger companies and with other small companies across Europe specialising in those
1604
different areas. That gives them openings for access to technologies and for learning of new opportunities for export.
However, I recognise that they do not help very much with the export programme itself. Nor do I believe that at present the UK Government have much in the way of programmes to help such firms with their export drives. We have in place the SMART and SPUR programmes, but they are small beer compared to the kinds of programmes many of our competitors have for their small firms. It is in this area that I should like to see some of the new initiatives beginning to emerge in the UK, flower and take on these kinds of responsibilities. I refer to the regional innovation strategies that are just beginning to emerge from the regional development agencies.
Only the other day I heard of plans emerging in London to bring together academic institutes, local authorities and large and small firms within London to develop competencies in new technologies and also to put such resources together to help, for example, a consortium of small firms create export and finance packages and so forth. Small firms can relate much more easily at that level. Frankly, it is difficult for small firms to join the European programmes because they have to find the time and resources to participate in the collaboration. However, time and money are: in scarce supply for such small businesses. They can relate much more easily to firms that are relatively close to them in geographical terms. In other countries we have often seen regional authorities taking the lead. Indeed, even in this country the existing regional development agencies in Scotland and Wales have taken the lead. Pulling companies together and providing resources and help to access both technology and market opportunities are precisely the kinds of tasks where the new regional authorities should play a part.
In putting these ideas to noble Lords, I hope very much that we shall hear from the Minister how the issues are developing.
7.57 p.m.
Lord Northbrook: My Lords, I welcome this opportunity, initiated by my noble friend Lord Wade, of Chorlton, to debate whether Her Majesty's Government provide an appropriate level of support for the export: of United Kingdom environmental technologies and services, or ETS, as they are known. Although the UK has made good progress in export markets for ETS over the past few years, our competitors are moving faster, leading to an erosion of the UK's market share. Our major competitor countries such as the USA, Germany and Japan all benefit from significant government export promotion and development support for their environmental industries through a variety of mechanisms. Those include feasibility studies, joint ventures and project finance. I understand that similar support is provided in other countries, including Canada and Denmark, to stimulate the growth of their environmental technology industries.
I was very interested to find out that the size of the global environmental technologies and services market is estimated by the trade body, the Environmental

1605
Industries Commission, to be worth £190 billion per year and that it is growing at a rate of 5 to 6 per cent a year in real terms.
I acknowledge the fact that the UK Government support the industry through the Joint Environmental Marketing Unit (JEMU). The industry says that it needs a package of government support which goes towards matching that provided by governments in our main competitor countries. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say on this subject, and whether the industry is, indeed, operating on a level playing field within Europe under the Treaty of Rome or whether other countries are unfairly subsidising their environmental technology and service businesses to the disadvantage of the UK.
Looking in more detail at the report of the trade body, the EIC, of July 1999, I note three specific areas which require support: first, financial support for feasibility studies and business plans, including the establishment of strategic partnerships in overseas markets. It is interesting to note that the budget of the US Trade and Development Agency is 56 million dollars, which is devoted mainly to support for feasibility studies, many of which are related to the environment.
The second area is financial support towards the cost of tendering for environmental projects. The commission complains that the overseas project fund is limited to projects above £50 million and states that most suppliers of ETS are small and medium-sized companies. Many important projects are under £50 million. I ask the Minister whether that ceiling could be lowered, as the larger projects could get financial support elsewhere.
The third area is assistance with project finance, especially in developing countries. Schemes such as the Japanese special environmental yen credit scheme; the Spanish fund for development aid and the mixed credit scheme in Denmark are quoted.
Let us compare OECD countries' and US support for ETS businesses. In the OECD, government support for export credits is the most common form of export promotion. That support may take the form of financing through extending direct credits, refinancing, and interest rate subsidies. Another form is the provision of insurance and guarantees to domestic suppliers and lending institutions for political and/or commercial risk. In addition, there is mixed credit where governments combine export credits with developing assistance funding, or there can be "tied aid financing" whereby any development assistance is tied to the purchase of goods or services from the donor country.
However, apart from the US and Australia, the 1994 report of the OECD, Export Promotion and Environmental Technologies, states that Government agencies do not generally have specific programmes or funds targeted as environmental technologies. OECD promotion through non-financial means is also important. That takes place by a variety of activities in the OECD, including training, provision of market information, trade mission support and help from embassies or consulates, in particular.
1606
The United States, as has already been stated, is now the largest exporter of environmental technologies and services. In 1993 the US Government published a paper entitled Environmental Technologies Exports—Strategic Framework for US Leadership. In 1994 the commerce department established the Office of Environmental Technologies Exports to work with US firms to export ETS overseas. Other initiatives included an information centre for ETS, resources for demonstration and pilot projects, banking assistance from the Export-Import Bank of the United States, and governmental assistance from the US agencies of International Development and Trade and Development.
Turning to the UK, the extent of support appears less comprehensive. The UK provides a range of export promotion services through Overseas Trade Services which is jointly sponsored by the DTI and FCO. As mentioned earlier, specific support for the ETS service in the UK is provided by the Joint Environmental Marketing Unit, which is jointly sponsored by the DTI and DETR. JEMU's mission is:
"to nurture the development of a strong competitive and world class UK environmental industry capable of competing successfully in the world market place".
Export support is provided through the industry and trade associations which represent the environment technology industry in the UK. As stated earlier, in the regions there are some initiatives to encourage the growth of local suppliers of ETS in both the domestic and export markets.
I note two interesting developments this year upon which I should like the Minister to comment in more detail. The first is the Climate Change Challenge Fund announced by the Foreign Secretary in February and funded to the sum of £0.5 million. The second is the Wilson report on export promotion, again dated last February. It recommended fundamental changes to export promotion and development support in the UK, on which I also hope the Minister will comment as far as it affects ETS exports.
I wish to conclude by saying that from these Benches we recognise the need to do the best we can for our exporters. The ETS sector is an important area, particularly as many of its businesses are small to medium-sized enterprises. Whether the ETS sector deserves especially favourable treatment, as compared to other small and medium-sized businesses, we are not necessarily convinced, even though we recognise that the sector deserves special attention due to the Government's specific interest in tackling global environmental issues, as highlighted in the Foreign Secretary's speech to the Green Alliance in February 1999. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
8.7 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, on an excellent speech which was worthy of his distinguished family. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wade, not only for tabling this Unstarred Question and for his contribution to today' s debate, but also for his personal efforts towards promoting and supporting the UK environmental

1607
industry. I know that he has participated in many highly successful trade missions abroad, particularly to South East Asia.
Perhaps I may also say, right at the start, that I agree that SMEs have a key role to play in this sector. However, I have to say that the Government are doing a great deal to support them. The fact that distinguished speakers here tonight are not aware of all the initiatives which have been taken suggests a problem with communication which we need to address. I also hope that over the long term the RDAs, with their innovation strategies, will contribute more to this area because there are great opportunities.
The Government's manifesto highlighted the huge potential to develop Britain's environmental technology industry to create jobs, win exports and protect the environment. In creating wealth and helping to create jobs while protecting the environment, the environmental technology industry provides a fine example of sustainable development in action.
At least one encouraging part of the debate is the fact that we are all using the same figures on the growth of the markets. We all agree that these are substantial markets growing rapidly. I shall not repeat the figures, on which we all agree.
I would not, however, be so gloomy about the UK environmental industry's response to these markets. Our turnover is about 12.3 billion dollars including 1.2 billion dollars worth of exports. That represents over 4 per cent of the global market. When figures were published two years ago the trend in Europe suggested that France might have overtaken the UK to move into second place behind Germany. It is therefore encouraging to note that emerging statistics show that the UK has increased its export effort to the point where it is ahead of France, although a long way behind Germany. While this trend is encouraging, there is much to do if this sector is to move ahead fast and build a stronger position in world markets.
In answer to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, about our promotional efforts abroad and our organisation of them, I should like to say what we have done to reorganise export efforts. The Government's recent creation of British Trade International brings together responsibility for export promotion functions from the Department of Trade and Industry and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. This new operation has lead responsibility within government for trade promotion and development. It combines in a single operation all trade development and promotion work currently undertaken locally in the English regions by the Business Link network, trade support services provided nationally and the commercial work overseas of over 200 embassies and other diplomatic posts. An integrated trade development organisation will give those firms offering UK solutions to environmental challenges a real edge in world markets.
British Trade International is also responsible for implementing the recommendations of the 1997 Export Forum. The forum recommended that the Government target their export promotion more, pay greater attention
1608
to UK sectoral strengths and provide better guidance on priorities. The "markets and sectors matrix" is part of the Government's response to the report. It gives a strategic overview of where the Government's export promotion priorities lie over the next three to five years and identifies the markets and sectors within markets where government support can make a difference. Of the 73 countries listed in the matrix, the environment sector is listed as a targeted priority in 47.
As has been said tonight, the Government also have an interdepartmental unit—the joint environmental markets unit, or JEMU—specifically dedicated to help promote the UK environmental industry. The Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions are working closely together through JEMU to promote the success of the industry. Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers have agreed that their staff will be seconded to JEMU to support work in promoting environmental exports. The practical arrangements for this are in hand.
JEMU's first three-year business plan, which was. launched by Ministers John Battle and Michael Meacher in March last year, after full consultation with the industry, detailed planned activities designed to raise the profile of the industry both at home and overseas. Good progress has already been made in implementing the business plan. As part of that business plan, we have a proposal for "demo sites", and this is already being implemented.
To deal with another point that was raised, we also have an environmental technology newsletter. Technology Partnership Initiative News, which is issued quarterly to over 6,000 recipients around the world.
JEMU has also taken a great deal of action. During the past year or so members of JEMU have travelled to many parts of the world to participate in missions, seminars and exhibitions in countries as far apart as Brazil, Germany, Singapore, Thailand, Brunei, India and Portugal.
JEMU has also been active in getting the market to visit suppliers. For the recent ET'99 exhibition in Birmingham, the UK's largest environmental exhibition, JEMU organised a "world mission" of over 70 overseas visitors from many key markets to the exhibition and arranged other visits to show at first hand the capabilities of the UK's environmental industry and its ability to provide solutions to environmental problems. This was the first multi-nation mission we have organised for a single sector. It is too early to ascertain the tangible benefits from this mission, but immediate reactions from participants were favourable. Valuable contacts had been made, together with the gaining of first-hand experience of UK capabilities. It is now for UK industry itself to take this forward, as commercial leads ensue.
The question of web sites and electronic communication was also raised. The Government are making the most of electronic communications to assist this sector. Within British Trade International's pages on the DTI's web site there is an environment sector menu. This enables companies within the environmental

1609
sector to see at a glance the range of government support services available to help them export. JEMU also has its own web pages, designed both to provide news and information to the sector and to help overseas customers gain access to UK expertise. It would appear from comments made by the noble Lords, Lord Wade and Lord McNair, that these services are not known to companies. Again, if that is the case, we need to improve our communications.
I hope I have shown that this Government take their role very seriously. They believe that the level of support to exporters is very significant. Indeed, the recent paper prepared by the Environmental Industries Commission acknowledged that the package of services provided by the UK Government is at a similar level to that available in other OECD countries. That is not to say, in answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Wade, that there is not more that we can do, but I think it is also correct to say that industry itself needs to play its part by developing and adhering to a medium- to long-term export strategy. The environmental market in particular is very much a long-term engagement.
The Government at times have been disappointed that despite their working with industry in the design of support services some of these services have not been used as effectively as they might have been. For example, recent trade missions to different parts of the world have been poorly attended and in some cases cancelled altogether. I fully understand the anxiety caused by recent global economic difficulties, but industry must not allow short-term indicators to deflect it from its long-term strategic objectives.
A number of points were raised about the question of the £50 million threshold for the overseas projects fund. The fund is an industry-wide scheme. There is little complaint from companies generally about the £50 million UK content threshold. Any change in the rules would affect applicants as a whole and not just those from the environmental industries. I should report, however, that an OPF customer satisfaction survey is currently being carried out. Among other things, companies are being asked about the £50 million requirement. The results of the survey are not expected until the end of September. When we have them, we shall obviously look at that issue.
A question was also asked about feasibility studies. Until 1995 the overseas projects fund could be used to fund free-standing feasibility studies, but the facility was withdrawn following an independent study which concluded that such studies rarely led to the commissioning of further work. The fund continues to provide support for studies which constitute an integral part of a bid for project work.
I should like now to say a brief word, as Minister for Science, about the Government's development of new sources of renewable energy and the considerable work we are doing in that field, which has real export potential. The Government are committed to a strong drive to develop new and renewable energy, reflecting the key role it can play. On 30 March the Government
1610
published a consultation paper, New and Renewable Energy—Prospects for the 21st Century. The Government have set a target of working towards providing 10 per cent of UK electricity supplies from renewable sources by 2010. These existing and new technologies will include landfill gas, waste, on-shore and off-shore wind and energy crops. We also want to maintain the momentum even after 2010. The contribution of renewables will continue to rise. It can be seen that considerable work is being done on the technology of renewable energies and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, pointed out, the fifth framework also supports much work in the environmental area. In answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McNair, we do a lot of work in supporting wind power.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that a tough, regulatory environment can do much to promote innovation within companies. That is what the climate change levy and the associated energy efficiency schemes are all about. So we are moving strongly in that direction.
One of the Government's first actions on coming to office was to award a grant of over £270,000 to a new export services company—an industry-led bid following research from the industry itself. That company, which has already been alluded to this evening, is called the Environment Industries Commission—Export Services Company. It aims to help the technology sector to win more business in global markets by stimulating member firms to respond to opportunity and by encouraging networking and the formation of consortia.
The design of the project has been for industry to formulate. But as we approach the end of its second year, the results have so far been disappointing. Some of the project's original targets appear with hindsight to have been over-ambitious and companies have been reluctant to commit themselves. However, at all times the Government have sought to be as flexible as possible as the initiative has evolved and we continue to encourage the Export Services Company to be clear about the added value it can offer to companies in this industry.
By way of conclusion, one of the most effective things we can do for this sector is to ensure that the Government are playing their role in maintaining a stable economic climate and a long-term vision with sustainable development at its core. We need to encourage all business to think ahead and plan for a cleaner world and improved quality of life. British Trade International has already recognised the importance of the environmental sector and is working with JEMU to encourage industry to recognise the excellent opportunities. The Government will continue to encourage industry, through better collaboration, to enhance its dialogue with government for the evolution of export services for the future.
In the time I have available I have not been able to catalogue all the export services provided by the Government, but I hope your Lordships will acknowledge that the importance of the UK's

1611
environment industry is recognised by this Government and that we are energetically playing our part in its development and promotion.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.22 to 8.30 p.m.]

Immigration and Asylum Bill
House again in Committee.
Clauses 123 and 124 agreed to.
Clause 125 [Searching arrested persons]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Simon): Before calling Amendment No. 193WA, I advise the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 193XA.
Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby moved Amendment No. 193WA:
Page 79, line 40, leave out ("but it does authorise the search of a person's mouth").
The noble Baroness said: I can move this amendment reasonably quickly. It deals with the whole area of search under the Bill, involving the right of immigration officers and others to investigate and search somebody who is suspected of an offence.
We are particularly concerned about the fact that under Clause 125 officials have the right to authorise the search of a person's mouth. We understand that that is necessary in the case of drug offences. We are generally very puzzled about why it should be authorised in the case of immigration offences. It is rather difficult to understand what people might conceal in their mouths that may be germane to discovering that they were guilty of an immigration offence.
We have been told about one hard case. This related to a woman who apparently had some razor blades in her mouth. She said that she was prepared to commit suicide if an attempt was made to deport her. That was obviously a sad case but, I believe, a very rare one. That case does not seem to us to provide grounds for including in the rights of search that are contained in the Bill the search of a person's mouth.
There are already restraints in the Bill; for example, intimate searches are not generally permissible. We suggest that searching a person's mouth should fall into the same category and not generally be subject to the right of search.
We are worried on several grounds. First, for many people this an unacceptable intrusion. Secondly, we genuinely cannot see its relevance. We know of no other case that has been mentioned to justify it. Thirdly, we are referring to people who in many cases will have been traumatised in their earlier existence. Therefore,
1612
we are very strongly opposed to intrusions which are not absolutely essential. This amendment seems to us to fall clearly within that category. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The effect of Amendment No. 193WA would be to remove the specific authorisation in Clause 125(5), which provides for the search of an arrested person's mouth. Amendment No. 193XA would limit searches under this subsection to an outer coat, jacket or glove, and only where the immigration officer had reasonable grounds for believing that the arrested person might be in possession of an item capable of causing physical injury to himself or to another person.
The consequence of the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness would be to introduce divergent practices between the immigration authorities and the police. The amendments would prevent immigration officers carrying out certain kinds of effective search. An immigration officer searching a person has a duty not only to that person but also to his or her own safety and the safety of others at the scene.
Experience has shown that items such as razor blades, drugs and other dangerous materials are concealed in the mouth. That is why a specific reference to searching a person's mouth appears in the equivalent police powers under Section 32 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and why it has been replicated here.
It is not the intention of this clause to provide immigration officers with powers to enable them to carry out intrusive and inappropriate searches. Immigration officers will receive specific training in this area, and the emphasis of that training will be on sensitivity and co-operation. I expect that there will be very many cases in which immigration officers would have no grounds for suspecting that dangerous items had been concealed. However, we cannot assume that that will always be the case. The clause provides adequate safeguards which apply to the police and others who are empowered by the police and criminal evidence codes.
An immigration officer must have reasonable grounds for believing that relevant items are concealed on an arrested person. He or she can search only to the extent that is reasonably required for the purpose of discovering such items. I cannot invite noble Lords to support these amendments. If an officer has reasonable grounds for believing that relevant items are concealed on an arrested person and if he or she can search only to the extent that is reasonably required for the purpose of discovering such items, in my submission, those provisions are not objectionable. I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Dholakia: May I probe the Minister about the position of asylum seekers? Will there will be enough women immigration officers to carry out such duties? Culturally, it is fairly offensive to women from certain countries to be examined by male officers, even if it relates to a search of the mouth.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: It is fairly clear that the Minister does not intend to yield on Amendment No. 193WA. As this amendment is grouped with

1613
Amendment No. 193XA, I shall say a word or two about that. If the Minister is not prepared to accept Amendment No. 193WA—
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Clearly not.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: In that case, I shall press him on Amendment No. 193XA. I do not mean to be rude, but I find his argument quite disingenuous. Drugs are not part of an immigration offence, as it is normally understood. They are, of course, part of a straightforward offence in our society. If an immigrant or a refugee is charged with a drugs offence, it is perfectly reasonable to investigate his or her mouth; we are not arguing to the contrary. However, this is not about drugs offences; it is about immigration offences. It is difficult to see how somebody would, for example, swallow a passport. I suppose it is possible, but it seems unlikely.
I repeat that the only case about which we have heard to justify this quite extraordinary level of intrusion—of a kind that creates considerable cultural problems, as my noble friend has pointed out—is the case of one lady, about whom we have all heard, who was found to have a razor blade concealed in her mouth. People who threaten to commit suicide do the same thing, but we do not immediately authorise a search of the mouths of people who are stopped and searched by police officers, unless there is reason to suspect that a drugs offence has been committed.
I turn to Amendment No. 193XA as a fall-back position. It seems to me that this amendment limits the way in which a search of a person's mouth could be sustained. It makes it clear that an officer must have reasonable grounds for believing that the suspect might be in possession of an item capable of causing physical injury to himself or to another person. This at least would limit the powers of search.
I beg the Minister to think again. This is similar to the kind of matters which we have come across in other cases under the stop-and-search powers, which have created tremendous strains in relations between the different communities in this country. It seems very difficult to justify this degree of intrusion. We accept that it may be necessary in a case in which somebody is charged with offences that are directly relevant, such as drugs offences, but that is quite a different issue, as the Minister well knows.
I suggest to the Minister that Amendment No. 193XA, which is unexceptionable by any possible standard, should at least be written into the Bill if he insists on maintaining the provisions relating to the search of a person's mouth. I believe that anything less than this is likely to create totally unnecessarily strained relations, which we have no wish to bring about, between the immigration service and the people for whom they are responsible.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: I rise to support the noble Baroness. As we started to deal with Part VII of the Bill, I felt almost as if we had hit another author, because the style of Part VII is very different from that
1614
of Part VI. When we were discussing Part VI, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said several times, when pressed, that we do not have to put everything on the face of the Bill whereas it seems in Part VII that we are putting everything on the face of the Bill and it reads rather strangely. I believe that this particular item—namely, the searching of a person's mouth—could surely be spelled out in a code of practice. Must it really be on the face of the Bill?
Lord Hylton: I support the comments which the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, made a few minutes ago. I had intended to ask the very question that he asked, and I hope that we shall have an answer tonight. We know that there is now a woman police officer in almost every police station in the country. It is the practice that women will be searched only by other women. Perhaps the Minister could say how many women immigration officers are now in post and what proportion that number bears to the total.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: With regard to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, sufficient numbers of female officers will be recruited to ensure that they are available in circumstances where the immigration service would expect to encounter women. I made it clear when responding to the amendments that sensitivity and co-operation are of enormous importance in relation to this area of the Bill. I entirely accept what the noble Lord is saying in relation to, for example, personal searches of any sort giving rise to particularly sensitive issues. The sex of the person searching and the person searched must obviously be looked at very carefully. I reiterate that sufficient female officers will be recruited and engaged to ensure that they are available in circumstances where we expect to encounter women.
I cannot give the numbers for which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked, but I shall write to him with the numbers that he seeks. The present position is that about 50 immigration per cent of officers are female. But that does not quite answer his question. The noble Lord asked for not only the proportion, but the numbers.
I turn to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. As ever, I do not believe that there is that much between us. Perhaps I may be wearisome and take the noble Baroness to Clause 125(2), which permits an immigration officer to search the arrested person,
"if he has reasonable grounds for believing that the arrested person may present a danger to himself or others. The officer may search the arrested person for—anything which he might use to assist his escape from lawful custody; or anything which might be evidence relating to the offence for which he has been arrested".
The powers in Clause 125(2) and (3), which apply if the officer believes that there is a danger, if the arrested person has something which may assist his escape, or evidence, can be exercised,
"only if the officer has reasonable grounds for believing that the arrested person may have concealed on him anything of a kind mentioned"
in subsections (2) and (3). Any such search is already limited to the three circumstances identified. Those are, if the arrested person presents a danger to himself or

1615
others; if he has something which might assist him in his escape; or if he possesses something which might be evidence in the case. It is in those circumstances, and only in those circumstances, that such a search can be made. That includes that only in those circumstances can a search be made of the person's mouth.
I anticipate that the noble Baroness would not object to a search of someone's mouth being made if there were reasonable grounds for believing that what was in the mouth could present a danger to that person or to others, which includes drugs. Equally, she would not object if there was something in the mouth that could be used to assist his escape. I anticipate that she could not object, although it is not on the face of her amendment, if there was evidence in the mouth. Those are the only circumstances in which such a search can be made. It can only be made where it is reasonably required for the purpose of discovering any such thing.
I do not believe that the proposal made by the noble Baroness in Amendment No. 193XA is very different from what is already on the face of the Bill. It is no different from the position in relation to ordinary police work save that it is limited to matters with which an immigration officer is concerned. I very much hope that I have put the noble Baroness's mind at rest. I do not believe that we are very far apart in relation to what we are trying to achieve. I hope that she will not regard it as disrespectful if I say that I was not being disingenuous in what I said. I believe that we share the same motives.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark appeared to be complaining that provisions were on the face of the Bill in Part VII. That does not seem to me to be objectionable in a case where we are dealing with the rights of people to arrest other people, or to conduct searches of this sort.
8.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My diocese covers several urban boroughs. One of the problems with which we have had to deal during the past 12 months or so is the deep suspicion which many of the people living in my part of the world have towards the police. The stop-and-search laws have contributed to that over the years. It is not the fact that provisions are spelt out in great detail, but the way in which this particular provision is spelt out, which would, I feel, be received in a negative way in the part of the world where I minister.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I am not wholly persuaded. One understands that it is a balance of the effects. Of course I agree with everything that the Minister said about the reasons why one would undertake a search. In my view, important though they are, they do not outweigh the effects on race relations of undertaking searches at all in respect of immigration offences. Having said that, I shall consider carefully the Minister's comments. I see the force of his argument but I believe that the force of the argument the other way happens to be stronger. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 193XA not moved.]
Clause 125 agreed to.
Clause 126 agreed to.
Clause 127 [Access and copying]:
[Amendments Nos. 193YA and 193ZA not moved.]
Clause 127 agreed to. Clauses 128 to 130 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 193A not moved.]
Clause 131 [Detention of persons liable to examination or removal]:
[Amendment No. 193E had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 194:
Page 88, line 22, at end insert—
("() In the 1971 Act, after paragraph 18(1) of Schedule 2 insert—
"(1A) A person detained in Northern Ireland under paragraph 16 shall not be held in prison."").
The noble Lord said: The amendment concerns the detention of people in Northern Ireland. As was mentioned earlier in our debate, each year for the past year or two some 400 people have been involved in the immigration and asylum-seeking process. As elsewhere, quite a number of those need to be detained for a period of time. However, there is no detention centre in Northern Ireland. As a result, those people have to be detained in one of the prisons in Northern Ireland. I happen to know about the prisons in the Province, as I was responsible for them for a short while when I was security Minister. Indeed, I visited all of them on quite a number of occasions.
I have also visited a certain number of prisons in the rest of the United Kingdom. I have to say that, for extremely understandable reasons which I entirely support, Northern Ireland prisons are very secure places. They have regimes of considerable strictness, for reasons which all noble Lords will appreciate immediately. However, the question is whether those prisons are appropriate for detaining people under this legislation.
Most of the men who are detained are kept in HMP Magilligan, which is right at the far end of Northern Ireland; indeed, it is beyond Londonderry in a rather windswept and extremely inaccessible place on the laugh. People do not always realise that it is a long way from one side of Northern Ireland to the other. The communications are not brilliant from the point of view of someone trying to take public transport across the Province. Therefore, for the men to be detained in that prison is not only to keep them in a very tough prison, but also to do so in a place which is far away from anyone likely to be able to advise them on the legal assistance that they may require when pursuing their case, and so on.
The women in such circumstances are detained in HMP Maghaberry, which is principally a male prison with a female wing attached to it. Despite the troubles in Northern Ireland, very few women are in prison in the Province at any given time. I remember visiting the

1617
prison on one occasion, and, if I remember correctly, there were 27 women prisoners at the time. Several of those woman had committed the most horrific crimes that it is possible to imagine, as part of the terrorist effort. However, one of the ladies had not paid her television licence. Admittedly, it was a rather serious case in that respect and she was not detained for long, but in such a tiny prison it is impossible to run a regime determined precisely by the crimes committed; or, indeed, to do so to accommodate the individuals covered by this legislation in a way which I entirely accept is necessary.
Therefore, the moving of this amendment is not an attempt to persuade Members of the Committee that we should constrain the Government by passing the amendment in the exact form in which it appears on the Marshalled List; I seek merely to raise the issue of the lack of a detention centre in Northern Ireland to which either males or females can, conveniently, be sent. I should perhaps have pointed out that Maghaberry prison is much more accessible geographically to Belfast and large parts of Northern Ireland.
In putting this Bill into effect, can the Minister say whether the Government have any plans to create a detention centre in Northern Ireland which would provide more appropriate conditions in which to detain the relatively few people who, nevertheless, need to be detained under these provisions? I beg to move.
Lord Avebury: Perhaps I may speak to Amendments Nos. 194A and 194B, which refer to Schedule 16 to the Immigration Act 1971. That legislation sets out four sets of circumstances in which a person may be detained by an immigration officer, which are as follows: first, pending his examination and pending a decision to give or refuse him leave to enter; secondly, pending the giving of directions and his removal in pursuance of any directions given; and, then, thirdly and fourthly, in cases where that person is detained on a ship or an aircraft in which he has just arrived.
The only one of those four circumstances which is dealt with by these amendments is the second; namely, where the person is detained pending the giving of directions and his removal in pursuance of any directions given. We are saying is that such a person can be detained by the Secretary of State in such place as he may direct and that it is only where the person has just arrived and where his examination is pending—or, indeed, where a decision has yet to be taken on whether to give or to refuse him leave to enter—that that person should not be detained in a prison.
The Government say that they want to concentrate detention at the end of the asylum process, but the reverse has been happening. The vast majority of the people who are held in prisons and detention centres are those who have just arrived and who are awaiting examination by an immigration officer or awaiting a decision on their case. As noble Lords may remember, in his report on Haslar of August 1998, the Chief Inspector of Prisons said:
"we consider it is inappropriate, save in exceptional circumstances, for Prison Service establishments to be used to hold detainees who
1618
have neither been charged with any criminal offence nor been subject to judicial process. Indeed, such detention contradicts the Prison Service's own statement of purpose which states that: 'Her Majesty's Prison Service serves the public by keeping in custody those committed by the courts"'.
Broadly speaking, the Government have accepted Sir David's argument. This amendment simply requires them to act in accordance with their stated intentions in relation to this class of persons dealt with under Schedule 16 to the Immigration Act 1971.
For some time now, the information about the number and location of Immigration Act detainees has been given by the Home Office at the end of each month in a set of figures which is lodged by the prison department in the Library of the House. These have been tabulated and displayed for the past year or so on the Website, www.penlex.org.uk, so that noble Lords, or anyone else, can see what is happening to these figures over a period of time. The figures for the end of May were lodged, I believe, on Wednesday of last week.
Looking at the pattern over the past few months for which the figures are available, we see that the number of detainees in prison has exceeded 500 in seven months out of nine and that, over that period, the average total number of detainees overall in prisons and detention centres was 959. Of course, the overwhelming majority had not committed any criminal offence. There would be a handful of persons recommended for deportation on completion of a custodial sentence where the procedures had not been completed by the end of their sentence.
We are not seeking to alter the present position which is that the Secretary of State must have power to detain these individuals beyond the end of their sentence, although we would hope that the procedures could nearly always be completed by that date. I raised this point at Second Reading. The Minister wrote to me on 9th July saying:
"It is the policy and practice of the IND to complete all necessary action prior to the completion of the person's prison sentence so that deportation coincides with the person's release from prison. Regrettably this is not always possible and there are a variety of reasons for this. The person's prison sentence may have been short or significantly reduced on appeal; there may have been a delay in notifying the IND of the conviction; the person may have made late representations against his deportation or there may be difficulties in obtaining a travel document".
I think that the notification to the IND of convictions which are accompanied by a recommendation for deportation should always be immediate and automatic, and that the procedures for obtaining a travel document, if that person does not already have one, should be set in motion immediately after conviction. I wonder whether the Minister could ensure that administrative inefficiency in such matters is not used as a reason for keeping these people in prison for longer than is necessary.
The Minister also mentioned the category of high-risk persons requiring security and control to a degree not appropriate in immigration detention centres. Although there is a very small number of people deemed to be

1619
security risks held initially under the Immigration Acts, I suggest that the need for this power should be made out.
I shall give one example. A group of five Egyptian asylum seekers were recently held in Belmarsh on the grounds that they were security risks, but when they went on hunger strike they were immediately transferred to Rochester. They applied for habeas corpus and the day before the applications were to be heard in the courts they were released. I believe that they were not subsequently taken back into custody. The reasons for keeping them in a high security prison such as Belmarsh in the first place were obviously invalid.
Another category which the Minister mentioned in the letter he sent me this week is that of persons requiring healthcare or medical treatment which is available only in prison in circumstances where it is not appropriate for the person to be released or placed under long-term hospital watch in an NHS hospital. As far as I have been able to ascertain, there has been no consultation with organisations representing mental health interests, but MIND told me that in any case seriously ill patients are always transferred from prisons to NHS hospitals. MINI) pointed out that an internal review of the adequacy of facilities in the prisons for these patients is being conducted jointly by the Home Office and the Department of Health. Under these circumstances we on these Benches do not accept that patients should be transferred to Wormwood Scrubs or Rochester on the sole ground that only in this way can they be given proper care.
Thinking about the remainder of the Immigration Act detainees who are not criminal, I wonder whether the Minister can say what he thinks the reduction in the numbers will be as the time taken to reach first decisions is cut. Last Monday the Minister said that if the maximum period of detention were limited to six months it would not make much difference. However, he says in the letter to me that there are no fewer than 120 people now in detention whose stay in custody has lasted more than six months. I should have thought it might be quite a significant reduction.
The Minister also states in his letter that new Aldington which is being built to accommodate Immigration Act detainees will take at least 300 people and that a new detention centre for 250 detainees is to be provided as a replacement for Harmondsworth and the Queen's Building at Heathrow. He adds that there is to be a further detention centre in the north to accommodate about 150 detainees and that the Government are looking at the possibility of using the Cat D unit at Lindholme prison for that purpose. It could be ready in less than nine months. The Minister's statement that by this means ad hoc use of prisons for detainees in the north can be eliminated is most welcome.
With regard to Scotland and Northern Ireland, the Minister says that the numbers are too small to justify separate detention centres, although in Scotland there is a unit for detainees which forms part of Longriggend prison. Presumably that must have become a matter for the Scots, if they wish to pursue it. In the case of
1620
Northern Ireland—mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cope—the figures I mentioned earlier show that there is no one in Magilligan at the moment although at one time there were as many as 12 during the past year. The maximum in Maghaberry over that period was two. Therefore it would be rather difficult to justify the construction of a purpose built detention centre in the Province. However, I accept that it would be anomalous if, at a time when we are moving towards the accommodation of all these people in detention centres rather than prisons in the rest of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland alone has to keep people in what are, as the noble Lord described it, exceptionally secure conditions.
Another matter I wish to raise, if I can hang it on the peg of this amendment, is the recommendation of the chief inspector that statutory rules for immigration detainees should be drawn up so that both staff and inmates would know what was expected of them. Those rules are to be made under Clause 143 of the Bill and it seems to me that they may have a bearing on the plans for Aldington and the other new centres to be constructed. For instance, what provision is to be made for religion in these centres? If we read across the rules for prisons to detention centres, the spiritual care of people detained in these centres becomes a matter which has to be considered in the provision of the accommodation. Presumably there has to be a multi-faith centre and a church. If an increasing number of the detention inmates are Moslems, there might even have to be a special purpose mosque. Have the Government discussed this matter with the nominating authorities of the minority faiths who know something about the needs of their adherents in the prisons?
As another example, it could be important to know what provision for education will be made under the rules. In his report on Haslar the chief inspector said that it was intolerable that education had been cut there by 50 per cent, not in line with immigration service policy, but in line with cuts required of the Prison Service. If educational facilities are to be restored for detainees in purpose built institutions, this may well have implications for the size and nature of the facilities which are to be constructed. The rules have been circulated in draft and I believe that the chief inspector commented on them about a month ago. Have these comments been taken into consideration in the design of Aldington and can they be satisfied by the facilities at Lindholme? I hope that if the Government wish to have powers to detain non-criminal Immigration Act detainees in prison, they will come forward with their own amendment on Report limiting the categories of people to whom the powers apply.
Lord Hylton: I am grateful, as I think the whole Committee should be, to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for highlighting the inappropriate and probably unnecessary detention in prison of non-criminal people.
I turn to Amendment No. 194 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, and the particular situation of Northern Ireland. He and I would like to urge the Government to make absolutely the minimum use of detention and the maximum use of bail, as is

1621
provided for in this Bill, and also the maximum possible use of voluntary bodies to look after, and take care of, immigration and asylum cases still being considered. In the context of Northern Ireland I include the Churches along with the wide range of community organisations and other voluntary organisations. As I said previously, they are the people who are capable—without putting up sureties and large sums of money—of ensuring that these people appear in the right place on the right day.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The amendments deal with the circumstances in which prisons are used to detain immigration detainees. Let me make it clear that the Government accept that prisons are not an appropriate place to house the majority of immigration detainees. We have already given a commitment to reduce our reliance on prison service accommodation but, as we made clear in the White Paper, it will never be possible completely to cease to use prisons for the housing of immigration detainees. Prisons may be appropriate where certain medical, security or control considerations apply, or by reason of geography.
I shall deal first with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, which relates to Northern Ireland, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, also spoke and which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, also mentioned in the course of his tour d'horizon of all the circumstances in relation to which people were detained in prison.
The number of those detained in Northern Ireland under the provisions of the Immigration Act is very small—on average five at any one time. The numbers are insufficient to justify a dedicated detention centre there and we have no plans to build one. I can reassure the Committee that those held in Northern Ireland are held separately from convicted prisoners. If the amendment was accepted, we would not only be unable to detain the few ordinary detainees under current arrangements but we would also be unable to detain those who, for whatever reason, are unsuitable for an immigration detention centre.
The only feasible alternative for those people detained in Northern Ireland would be to move them to detention facilities on the mainland. Such a move could mean that detainees were separated from family, friends and other support, including access to their legal representatives. That would not be an appropriate conclusion to reach. So that is one circumstance, unfortunately, in which it has to be done. However, it relates to very few people.
I note and take seriously the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, about the conditions in Magilligan prison and I shall take up the matter with the Northern Ireland Office to see whether—I can give no assurances—other facilities can be made available.
I am genuinely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for his explanation of Amendments Nos. 194A and 194B. As is perhaps apparent, I have sympathy with what he said, but I cannot accept the amendments. Their effect would be to limit to a maximum of 24 hours the detention of a port arrival detainee pending a decision on whether or not to admit him, unless he is detained in a designated detention centre.
1622
We accept that it will normally be in the best interests of a detainee to be detained in a dedicated immigration detention centre. The Committee will be aware that we are seeking to expand the detention estate and to reduce our current reliance on prison establishments. However, even on the best available forecasts, new detention centres are unlikely to be operational before the early part of 2002—although the noble Lord, when referring to the letter sent to him by my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn, referred to some parts of existing places which might be open within the next nine months. I doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will allow the Government to leave his proposed new subsection lying dormant until then; and even after that date we shall have to continue to rely on detention in places other than detention centres, especially in cases where people arrive in remote parts of the United Kingdom.
The noble Lord has limited his amendment to cases where someone is seeking leave to enter and is detained for further examination pending a decision on whether or not leave to enter or temporary admission is granted. In those circumstances, there are three possible detention options: either short-term accommodation; a detention centre proper; or prison. Cases where a person is detained in a detention centre do not present any practical difficulties because, according to the amendment, detention can continue beyond the 24-hour limit.
Short-term detention accommodation is precisely that; it is intended for short-term use. But "short term" is not the precise definition envisaged by this amendment. If someone has to be transferred into a detention centre when they are coming up to the 24-hour mark, there will inevitably be resource implications and possibly delays. Clearly one would not wish to prolong someone's stay in such accommodation beyond what is reasonable, but there are circumstances where detention in such accommodation for slightly longer than 24 hours would be reasonable, whether for geographical reasons or otherwise.
However, we recognise the need for a limit to detention in short-term holding facilities. That is already provided by the Immigration (Places of Detention) Direction which limits such detention to five days in port examination cases and to seven days in removal cases. We do not think that any reduction in those limits would be practicable.
Turning to detention in prisons, I shall give two examples why detention in a prison beyond 24 hours may be necessary. First, there is the case of someone who makes an application and on being told that his application has been refused and that he will be detained under the Immigration Act, threatens or offers violence. In those circumstances, detention in a detention centre may not be appropriate, both as regards the interests of the detainee and the interests of fellow detainees and detaining officers. Alternatively, when a person has been sent to a detention centre and he behaves in a violent or disruptive manner, again, detention centre accommodation would be inappropriate.

1623
Much as I regret it, we require an alternative detention option beyond the normal detention centre. For that reason I cannot accept the amendments proposed.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said that the use of bail should be as free as possible. Ultimately, bail, even under the terms of the Bill, is a matter for the magistrates; it is not a matter for the executive. Therefore, one should direct one's remarks to the courts rather than to the executive. In those circumstances, I submit that the noble Lord should withdraw his amendment.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I accept that sometimes there will be a need to detain such people at least for a short while in prison. The Minister has given some examples. However, it is against the advice of the United Nations Committee against Torture and the United Nation's High Commissioner for Refugees, both of which have condemned the practice of the non-segregated detention of asylum seekers.
On the position in Northern Ireland, I accept that one cannot expect a greenfield site to be made available for a new detention centre. I believe that some attention should be given—the Minister has rightly agreed to this—as to whether Magilligan is the appropriate prison, given its geographical location. I was not attempting to criticise the conditions in Magilligan that the Minister described, but its geographical location, at the far end of the Province.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The noble Lord is absolutely right. My loose use of language was the problem. I apologise for that.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I entirely accept that. It is good that the Minister is looking at it. However, no permanent adjudicator is situated in the Province, so appeals against asylum decisions, bail applications and so on by those detained are, therefore, necessarily slow processes. The adjudicator is based in Glasgow and visits Belfast once or twice a month. Although special hearings can occasionally be organised, if someone is detained the consequence is that he is likely to be detained for rather longer than he would be in the rest of the United Kingdom. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind in the course of reviewing the matter.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Before the noble Lord sits down, I should have dealt with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, concerning religious activities. The detention centre rules will make provision for the pursuit of religious activities. The Chief Inspector of Prisons has made a comment on the draft rules. Such comments will be given due weight in the final draft of the rules. However, nothing in his comments causes any problems with the existing design proposals of Aldington. I apologise for not saying that earlier.
Lord Avebury: I am most grateful to the Minister for his careful reply to the point that I raised. I am disappointed that the new facilities to be provided at
1624
Aldington and Lindholme, if the proposal comes off, will not be ready until the spring of 2002. Therefore, severely restricting the numbers in prisons will pose practical difficulties for the next two and a half years. I am not sure what the Chief Inspector of Prisons will say about that. I am sure he will not be pleased to learn the result of a recommendation that he made in August 1998. That recommendation was immediately accepted by the Home Office and the Government began to move in the direction of taking people out of prisons.
With a little effort, I believe that we should be able to complete those plans at an earlier date, so that the vast majority of people who are held in prison completely unnecessarily can be accommodated in a regime that is far more suitable for their needs. However, I accept that those categories of individuals mentioned by the Minister would have to be detained in prison for the reasons that he has given. I accept that if people threaten or offer violence in a detention centre, it may be impracticable for them to remain there and they may need to be transferred to more secure accommodation. The thought crosses my mind, however, that in cases that we know of where people have indeed been transferred from, for example, Campsfield House—a subject which was raised by my noble friend last year to such good effect—to a prison, that was used rather as a means of control than as a necessary procedure to look after the safety of the staff and other people. Therefore, I do not accept that the Secretary of State should have an unrestricted power to transfer whomsoever he pleases from a detention centre to a prison.
Nor do I think that the Minister is on very strong ground in objecting to the 24-hour provision that I included in my amendment. I thought that I was being generous in allowing the immigration authorities to keep someone in detention pending his transfer to a centre. All that is necessary is for someone to telephone and make arrangements for that person to be transferred, if there are places in the detention centres. But if that was the principal objection to the amendment, I am happy to discuss with the Minister whether it could be made acceptable by increasing the period from 24 to 48 hours, or even to 72 hours if that would allow the Minister to accept it.
I should like to take my amendment away for the time being and to consult those concerned. I was rather anxious given that the Minister did not make any remarks about my comments on those who are psychiatrically ill and are transferred from detention centres to Wormwood Scrubs or Rochester. That power should not exist. We should have provided for extensive consultations with the organisations representing the interests of psychiatric patients before saying that we intended to do that. I am sure that we shall have an opportunity to return to the matter in the autumn. In the mean time, I shall take good care to consult MIND and other organisations and seek their views on these provisions.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I apologise for interrupting. If the proposal regarding Lindholme comes off, as was made clear in the letter that the noble Lord read out earlier, places will be available within six to

1625
nine months. I believe that the noble Lord said that there would be no places at all until 2002. That is right in relation to Aldington and Heathrow, but not in relation to Lindholme.
Lord Avebury: I accept that; but Lindholme will not deal with more than about a third of the people who are presently in prison. In the period leading up to spring 2002, there will still be a large number of people who do not fall into any of the categories mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, in his letter as being necessarily accommodated in prison. Those people will be there simply because we have not provided the facilities for them. That is a shame and a scandal.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 194A and 194B not moved.]
Clause 131 agreed to.
Clause 132 [Fingerprinting]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 195:
Page 90, line 3, after ("B") insert ("or any child").
The noble Lord said: This amendment also stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton. It provides that if a child—that is to say, someone under 18—is to be fingerprinted, there should be some extra control over that in the form of the senior immigration officer giving permission for it. I shall not argue the case in any detail; nor shall I seek to pre-empt the Minister's reply, except to say that I take no pride in the particular drafting of the amendment; it is the point behind the amendment that I seek to achieve. If I should receive a favourable answer, I should be willing to accept any drafting that the noble and learned Lord might want to suggest. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I apologise for attempting to interrupt the noble Lord who moved his amendment very briefly. Although some drafting issues arise in relation to this matter, the Government accept in principle the purpose of the amendment and will table an amendment at Report stage to deal with the point.
I should briefly set out the Government's position. Currently, we have the power to take the fingerprints of children who are asylum seekers, or dependants of asylum seekers. We take the view that it is not necessary or desirable as a matter of routine to take fingerprints from children under 16. Consideration is given to fingerprinting a child only where there are serious doubts as to his or her real identity, for example where the child holds a false travel document, has no travel document at all or has been accompanied to the United Kingdom by a known facilitator. Where real doubts arise, authorisation to take the fingerprints of a child must be obtained from a chief immigration officer, or a higher executive officer in the case of fingerprints taken at the public caller unit in Croydon, and the parent, guardian or an adult with responsibility for the child must be present.
1626
Before a child is fingerprinted, the chief immigration officer explains to the person with responsibility for the child that the child is to be fingerprinted and the reasons for so doing. If there are any doubts as to the need for fingerprints, and there are any signs that the child is distressed, discretion is exercised in favour of not taking fingerprints. These procedures are set out in full in IND staff instructions and have operated successfully for the past five years without the need for extra legislative provision. However, the Government accept the merits of the arguments for legislative underpinning and we shall table an amendment at Report stage to achieve this.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his reply and undertaking to table a government amendment on Report. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 195A:
Page 90, line 9, at end insert—
("() "Claim for asylum" has the same meaning as in Part VI.").
The noble and learned Lord: I should like to deal with government Amendments Nos. 195A, 195B, 195F, 206A, 207C and 210ZA. Perhaps I may take them in a slightly different order from that in which they appear on the Marshalled List. To deal first with Amendment No. 195B, asylum seekers who have valid leave to enter and subsequently seek asylum prior to the expiry of that leave will, if granted asylum, be granted indefinite leave to remain. Those who arrive at a port and seek asylum immediately on arrival are treated as "port cases" or alternatively "on-entry" cases. If granted asylum they will be granted indefinite leave to enter. The purpose of government Amendment No. 195B is to ensure that when asylum is granted, irrespective of whether the applicant is an in-country case or a port case, destruction of fingerprints occurs at the same time.
I turn next to Amendment No. 195F. Clause 136 confers on an immigration officer the power to use reasonable force, where necessary, when exercising any powers conferred by the Immigration Act 1971 or the provisions of this Bill. It also provides for prison officers, constables, authorised officers of the Secretary of State and employees at detention centres to use reasonable force when exercising fingerprinting powers under Clauses 132 or 133 of the Bill. In future, it is envisaged that different methods to identify people will be developed; for example a sophisticated photograph. Clause 135 provides the Secretary of State with the power to make regulations to enable such new methods to be used in this context. Amendment No. 195F is designed to extend the power to use reasonable force to include these new methods. That power would be used only when absolutely necessary.
I turn next to Amendments Nos. 206A and 207C. These are simple but necessary amendments designed to re-locate a reference to Clause 135 to a more appropriate place in Clause 154. Clause 154 provides for the making of rules, regulations and orders to be by statutory instrument. As currently drafted, regulations under

1627
Clause 135 are to be made by affirmative resolution under Clause 154(3)(f) However, given that the subordinate legislation in question is to be made by regulations rather than by order, it is necessary to move the reference to Clause 135 to Clause 154(4).
I turn to the first and last amendments in this group: Amendments Nos. 195A and 210ZA. To set these two amendments in context, I remind the Committee that there are two definitions of the term "claim for asylum" contained in this Bill; one in Clause 155, which relates solely to claims made under the 1951 Refugee Convention, and the other in Parts V and VI of the Bill, which relate to claims made under the Refugee Convention and Article 3 of the ECHR. Amendment No. 210ZA is a straightforward amendment to make clear that for the purposes of the power to fingerprint those who claim asylum, the definition of the term "claim for asylum" is not covered by Clause 155 of the Bill, but, as Amendment No. 195A makes clear, by the Part VI definition contained in Clause 84. Thus, the power to fingerprint asylum seekers covers those who make claims under the Refugee Convention and those who make claims under Article 3 of the ECHR. I commend all of these amendments to the Committee. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: I thank the noble and learned Lord very warmly for accepting the wider definition of "asylum" as used in Part VI of the Bill. While joining my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby in the welcome for Amendment No. 195C, I would like to probe one point about it. Subsection (6) of the new clause states,
"This section does not apply to any person exercising powers in Scotland".
I hope the Minister will forgive me if I ask him what does apply in Scotland. Since I imagine that osmosis will, as usual, take a certain amount of time, we need to consider whether safeguards do apply in Scotland. One imagines that the need for them will be exactly the same as it is elsewhere.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I do not bring good news. Amendment No. 195C was dealt with four groupings earlier. We have not been dealing with that amendment in the present grouping.
Earl Russell: I must have an out of date grouping. I apologise to the noble and learned Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 132, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 133 agreed to.
Clause 134 [Destruction of fingerprints]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 195B:
Page 90, line 35, after ("to") insert ("enter or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 134, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 135 agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 195C:
After Clause 135, insert the following new clause—
CODES OF PRACTICE (NO. 2)
(" .—(1) An immigration officer exercising any specified power to—

(a) arrest, question, search or take fingerprints from a person,

(b) enter and search premises, or

(c) seize property found on persons or premises,

must have regard to such provisions of a code as may be specified.
(2) Subsection (1) also applies to an authorised person exercising the power to take fingerprints conferred by section 132.
(3) Any specified provision of a code may have effect for the purposes of this section subject to such modifications as may be specified.
(4) "Specified" means specified in a direction given by the Secretary of State.
(5) "Authorised person" has the same meaning as in section 132.
(6) "Code" means—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, any code of practice for the time being in force under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984;

(b) in relation to Northern Ireland, any code of practice for the time being in force under the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989.

(6) This section does not apply to any person exercising powers in Scotland.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 136 [Use of force]:
Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby moved Amendment No. 195D:
Page 91, line 30, leave out ("the 1971 Act or") and insert ("Part VII of").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 195E. They both concern the use of force, which is dealt with in Clause 136. I begin by outlining where force will apply. At the present time it appears to cover both the 1971 Act and the whole of this Bill. In the light of the agreement to Amendment No. 195F, the use of force now also covers regulations concerning the collecting of data on external physical characteristics. It also covers fingerprinting and attendance for fingerprinting. Therefore, we are looking at a fairly wide range of issues where the use of reasonable force is authorised under Clause 136.
That clause is very short but sweeping. It states:
"An immigration officer exercising any power conferred on him by the 1971 Act or this Act"—
the whole of both Acts—
"may, if necessary, use reasonable force".
It continues,
"Any person exercising a power conferred by section 132 or 133 [fingerprinting] may, if necessary, use reasonable force".
We are extremely troubled by this clause, unamended, not least because of the Minister's response to our earlier attempts to suggest that there should be an independent immigration complaints board. Obviously, the issue of force will represent one of those areas where the relationship between immigration officers and the community of asylum seekers and refugees is at its most intense.
The Minister's understanding of the legal powers is clearly greater than mine. I may misinterpret the Act. However, so far as I can tell, it is not even a requirement that the person on whom reasonable force is used is reasonably suspected of having committed an immigration offence. It is not a case of having committed such an offence, but of being reasonably suspected of having committed one. That is the way in which Section 117 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act operates. Police who investigate crimes using reasonable force must be suspected of being responsible for the crime being investigated. We welcome such a limiting amendment to Clause 136 but it is not there. So far as we can tell, what is defined as a reasonable use of force could be applied in each part of the Bill.
I refer to some examples. The power could be used in Clause 7 to deal with people seeking to enter the country who had been refused entry. It could be used in Clause 8 and in Clause 9—a clause already under some pressure because of the recent decisions of the courts with regard to the return of people to so-called friendly countries within the European Union. It is a wide-ranging power.
The Minister stated—I understand why he did so—that under Amendment No. 195F such powers can be used "only when absolutely necessary". The difficulty is that, again, this is a request for us to accept that the genuine intentions of Ministers and their words will do instead of a clear limitation within the law itself. The use of reasonable force is an area which is likely to feed into media stories of strains on race relations—some of the exact issues raised in the Macpherson report on the Lawrence Inquiry. It pointed out that, despite the PACE codes, bad practice and racism within the police service still existed. It would be difficult to believe that no such charges could be made, ever, in any case against any members of the Immigration Service. Are we not dicing with a potentially dangerous situation?
I hope that the Minister will consider carefully whether our attempt to limit the use of reasonable force in Part VII, which deals with search and seizure, is appropriate. The Minister may say that Clauses 7 and 8 relate to the administrative return of someone from this country as distinct from deportation. An administrative return is not so very different from deportation. I ask him to consider drafting Clause 136 to limit its scope; or—as we would prefer—to state specifically that there must be reasonable belief that an offence has been committed under the immigration legislation.
I plead with the Minister. I believe that in this instance the Home Office could get into deep waters which could involve major strains in relations between the Immigration Service and those communities. I ask the Minister to consider carefully whether such sweeping uses of the power to use reasonable force are justified, or whether the provision could be limited in a more constraining way. Those of us who understand that reasonable force must be used on occasions, could then say that it was used only on occasions where it is absolutely necessary.
In this case, I believe that the Minister's words are not sufficient. They should be translated on to the face of the Bill or, at the very least, into codes which would control the practice by immigration officers of their responsibilities. I beg to move.
Lord Dholakia: I support the amendment proposed by my noble friend. My concern is based on specific cases in this country.
What is the justification for giving immigration officers such draconian powers to deal with those who are simply applying to enter or remain in the United Kingdom according to our law? The police do not have similar powers except in investigating crimes and questioning those who are reasonably suspected. What training will immigration officers receive in the use of force? From the day of joining, police are trained in arresting suspects and the use of force when taking information. Will immigration officers be trained in the same way as we train police officers, or are we going to employ police officers as immigration officers? We are talking about people who have been persecuted, who have fled their countries and who are frightened of people in uniform because of what has happened to them. We shall then be sending to them people in uniform, some without, who have draconian powers of arrest.
Will the Minister cast his mind back to a woman called Joy Gardner? I do not believe any one of us can escape what happened to her. The police officers, in the presence of an immigration officer, went into her house for the purpose of arresting and deporting her. They taped her mouth and her limbs. The end result was that she died, but, even worse, it did great damage to community relations. Every one of us knows what happened. The relationship between the police and black people has yet to be repaired.
That is the kind of situation we are discussing. If someone refuses to give his fingerprints, it is reasonable for those responsible to draw appropriate conclusions. However, one does not have to give such force to people who are not trained and who can do a great deal of damage. That causes me a considerable concern. A single false move by any immigration officer or police office will put back race relations in this country for another 50 years.
Earl Russell: In centuries past, the people who were arrested on suspicion used to be Roman Catholics. Some authorities faced with a challenge on that and told that they should not arrest such people on suspicion argued that they could arrest them if they were vehemently suspected.
We all know that authorities more readily suspect some portions of the community than others. The Minister is doubtless familiar with the Metropolitan Police stop and search figures, which indicate that suspicion focuses more quickly on some people than on others. I see no reason to suppose that immigration officers are immune from those weakness which affect other public servants in similar positions. They have not had training. The Explanatory Notes indicate that immigration officers will need training in the use of the

1631
new power proposed in the provisions. The cost of additional training equipment and external advice is estimated to be about £200,000 for each for the first five years.
That indicates that the Government are conferring a power on those who are not yet able to use it. I do not know what the timescale will be—whether those powers will be used before the training is complete—or whether this is the most effective use of public money. It is vital that those who have these powers should be required to show reasonable grounds for their suspicion. It is not a particularly far-reaching requirement, but it is an essential one.
The other dimension is the relations between the authorities and those which whom they deal. Authorities are often suspected, sometimes rightly and sometimes wrongly. I remember hearing at a briefing on the 1996 Asylum and Immigration Bill about someone who, finding an immigration search taking place in Brixton, believed that she was the person being searched for, climbed on to a roof, fell and was killed. She was someone in whom the officer had no interest at all.
We know perfectly well that in certain parts of the country relations between the authorities and the local communities are extremely volatile. It is important that authorities with powers of this kind should not merely be above suspicion, but should be seen to be above suspicion. I think that restricting the powers in this way will be a very necessary protection for the immigration officers themselves.
We know perfectly well—we need only look at Northern Ireland—what happens when police and legal authorities lose the confidence of one-quarter of the community. That is something from which it takes a long time to recover. We are near to that point in certain parts of London. I ask the Minister to help us not to go over the waterfall.
9.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells: I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply to these points. They seem to me to be of great importance. It is a matter of the climate created in such situations: what is to be expected; what is to be allowed? A vivid picture comes to mind of four boys aged 14 or 15 who were stopped outside our house. The plainclothes policeman with them hung them on our railings. I went out to ask what was happening. The policeman told me that they had been accused of stealing some fruit from the market-place. The point I wish to make is that four enemies had been made and that it was all to do with the climate. It was to do with what was thought to be the normal way of dealing with young people. I believe that the noble Baroness has put her finger on a very important point in the Bill.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Clause 136 provides for an immigration officer to use reasonable force if necessary in exercising the new powers of arrest, search and seizure conferred on him by this Bill or under the Immigration Act 1971. The police have specific powers in this regard under Section 117 of the Police and
1632
Criminal Evidence Act and there are general powers vested in any person, not just police officers, by Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 to use reasonable force if necessary. The clause is therefore needed to clarify the legal position given the extension of powers conferred by this Bill.
I entirely share the concerns expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, and the right reverend Prelate. In a sense the stark way in which they have spoken is in my view completely misconceived and completely to one side of the purposes of these powers. Amendment No. 195D would restrict the use of reasonable force to the new powers under Part VII of the Bill. That would be impractical as there are other powers contained in the 1971 Act which may require immigration officers to use reasonable force, for example, when escorting a person from A to B. It is probably already the law that if an immigration officer escorts someone from A to B, and the immigration officer needs to use force for self defence, or because he apprehends the commission of a crime or a breach of the peace, he will in any event be able to use reasonable force if necessary. It seems eminently sensible that this necessary power should be made explicit in the Bill so that there can be no doubt about it.
It is no more than that. It would not have, as noble Lords have said, a potentially detrimental effect on race relations. I appreciate that the way the powers are used is obviously significant, but simply to make explicit that which is probably already implicit is not objectionable. It must be remembered that it is only reasonable force that is at issue, and only where it is necessary. Often no force at all will be what is reasonable and appropriate. However, there may be situations which demand some reasonable force. Clause 136 makes that clear and permissible.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, said, "Please make explicit on the face of the Bill what I say in the Chamber". I am saying no more than that which is already on the face of the Bill. The Bill makes it clear, in relation to both this provision and provisions about searching the mouths of detainees, to which we referred earlier, that such a search can take place only where necessary. Reasonable force can be used only when reasonably required. That is all I am saying. It is right that that is on the face of the Bill, and it is. If the point made by the noble Baroness is that I used the words "absolutely necessary" rather than "necessary", perhaps I may point out that in legal terms there is not much difference.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I thank the Minister for giving way. I recognise that he is being helpful. I was quite explicit and pointed out that he may feel that limiting the amendment to Part VII alone would not deal with some other provisions where he would regard reasonable force as being necessary. I said that if he felt that there were other specific provisions that he wanted to list, that would be more acceptable to us than a totally sweeping power that covers everything in both pieces of legislation—one Act, one Bill.

1633
However, I also said—this is the crucial point—that my understanding is that in this Bill there is absolutely no requirement either that the person against whom reasonable force is used has to have committed an immigration offence or that there is reason to believe that he has committed an immigration offence. That is the difference between this provision and Section 117 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act which clearly states that reasonable force can be used only where an offence has been, or is reasonably believed to have been, committed. I may be wrong, but if I am correct, the first gives a much wider power to use reasonable force against anybody who is an immigrant or an asylum seeker than does the second. That worries us because it appears to set up almost, in a sense, an a priori friction with the immigration service along the precise lines pointed out by the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The position is that the only circumstances in which force can be used is where it is reasonable (that is the force) and where it is necessary. That is the position in any event for any police officer conducting his ordinary business as a policeman. Indeed, it is the same for all of us. A police officer, for example, may use reasonable force where it is necessary in self-defence. He may use reasonable force where it is necessary to prevent an actual or apprehended crime. This Bill gives no greater power than that.
As I said in my introductory remarks, it is probably the case that an ordinary citizen has those powers in any event. All we are doing here is making explicit that which is already implicit in the law. My concern about the way the argument has been put against me is that it has been suggested that this represents a change; it does not. It only makes explicit that which is already implicit.
The best example of that is the one I gave a moment ago. If an immigration officer is escorting somebody from A to B and that person seeks to escape, attacks somebody, or makes the immigration officer feel threatened with violence, it would plainly be justifiable for the immigration officer to use reasonable force as far as necessary. All that is happening here is that that has been made explicit on the face of the Bill. I fully share a desire not to do anything that will make race relations worse. I do not believe that this provision has the ramifications which noble Lords state.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My noble friend Lord Dholakia pointed out a very recent case where quite unreasonable force was used. It is that kind of thing which makes us want a more explicit commitment to the constraints on reasonable force. We do not want to bore the Committee, but we have examples of precisely where force has got completely out of control. We want to ensure that that never happens again.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: We are both saying the same test: reasonable force, if necessary. That must be the test in every case. One cannot prescribe what will be reasonable force and necessity in every case. What we are saying in the Bill is that when an immigration
1634
officer is lawfully performing his duties—because that will also be implicit—he can use, where necessary, reasonable force. If he cannot do that, what is the purpose of giving him the powers to do things in the first place?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Is the Minister saying that this creates no new right on the part of the officers concerned, but is merely making explicit what is already implicit in the law? Is that correct?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The position surely is that the law, when it confers upon somebody a power to do something, will normally explicitly—and if not explicitly, implicitly—give that person power to use reasonable force where necessary, but only when lawfully exercising the power given to him in order to effect that particular power. That is all we are doing here. I make that clear again. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has got it absolutely right. It is not appropriate to prescribe it any more. The difficulty will come in the actual implementation, but that is there already. Before immigration officers get into situations in which this power might have to be used, they will be trained. They will be trained by the Metropolitan Police in how to use reasonable force, what is reasonable force and what constitutes necessity. I think that we are all, as it were, singing to the same hymn sheet. This is again one of those legal points, rather than a point of substance between us.
Amendment No. 195E would restrict immigration officers to using reasonable force only if the individual concerned was over 16. Again, that would be impractical. There may be circumstances in which it would be difficult to determine the applicant's age and true identity, which could lead to dispute. There may also be certain circumstances in which a juvenile presents just as much danger to himself or harm to the public as an adult. It is therefore not appropriate to distinguish between certain age groups, although I fully recognise the need for children to be treated with appropriate care and sensitivity. What is reasonable force in the case of an adult obviously may not be reasonable in the case of a person under 16.
I am sure it will be agreed that it is far more important for immigration officers to be given a proper, explicit legal framework in which to operate. Equally, it is accepted that any force used needs to be commensurate with the power being exercised. Any force used must be no more than is needed to achieve the lawful purpose. The Committee will be reassured that immigration officers exercising the new powers will, as I said, be given proper training in the concept of reasonable force and its practical consequences. For the reasons given, I cannot support the amendments, but I very much hope that I have set minds at rest.
Earl Russell: The noble and learned Lord has gone a very long way to set our minds at rest. He is probably right that we are singing from the same hymn sheet, but I do not think we have quite all the words in both our copies.

1635
I take the point of the noble and learned Lord about reasonable force, but as I understand it reasonable force usually relates to the extent of the force rather than its object. It is the restriction of the object that is really interesting. I accept what the noble and learned Lord says about "when necessary." The question which probably still divides us is whether the opinion of the officer that force is necessary is subject to any outside check. I happened to be reading last week the current issue of Community Care, dealing with violence against the social worker. The publication interviewed a psychiatrist, who commented that most violence is experienced by the perpetrator as self-defence. I am sure that officers—immigration officers, police officers and others—are no exception to that rule. Things sometimes appear to a person to be necessary when that necessity may not be totally apparent to some outside and impartial party.
The other point is that here we have powers being transferred from the police to immigration officers. Powers which are already recognised in law and established may change their character by being imported into an altogether different and more volatile situation. I wonder whether there is a little more scope for thinking about the matter. I would be glad to think that there was.
10 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: Before withdrawing the amendment for further consideration I should like to conclude by making two or three brief points.
It is the culmination of three things that leave us still deeply disturbed by the Government's decision not to accept this amendment. They are, first, the use of reasonable force combined with the Government's current view—they may change it—that they do not want to see an independent immigration complaints board. That means that, unlike the police, there is no further supervision of an independent kind accountable directly to Parliament and not simply to the Home Office. That means therefore that there is no clear route to having a case reconsidered by an immigration officer, vis à vis his treatment of the phrase, "the use of reasonable force" in the way that that exists in the case of the police.
Secondly, the Minister talked eloquently about training. But my noble friend made the point that provision for training within the Explanatory Memorandum on the financial cost of this Bill explicitly says that the amount to be spent on training on Part VII—that is to say, search and seizure—amounts to £200,000 a year for each of five years. I do not know how many people that would train, but I suspect it would be very few. That again worries us. What is to happen if insufficiently trained immigration officers use "reasonable force" in a wide range of situations which will involve them in much of their work in ways which turn out to be injurious for the person concerned?
Thirdly (I have to reiterate) there have been instances—we have already heard two examples given by my noble friends—where the use of force involved catastrophic consequences for the person concerned.
1636
I am sorry to have to say this, but we are not satisfied on this side that our anxieties have been met. We feel that, in the interests of good race and community relations in this country, we will have to return to this matter on Report. I hope the Minister will have an opportunity to consider whether he can move any further to meet what we believe to be reasonable apprehensions. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 195E not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 195F:
Page 91, line 31, after ("133") insert ("or regulations under section 135").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 136, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 195G:
After Clause 136, insert the following new clause—
("Asylum seekers bearing false papers
ASYLUM SEEKERS BEARING FALSE PAPERS
. In section 5 of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, at the end there is inserted—
"(7) In subsection (5)(f) above, "passports and documents which can be used instead of passports" does not include any such document when used by a person seeking entry to the United Kingdom as an asylum-seeker or transiting the United Kingdom with a view to seeking asylum in another country."").
The noble Lord said: Some Members of the Committee may have seen an article which appealed in the Independent on Sunday a few days ago under the heading, "Britain gaols a thousand refugees". The article claims that the United Nations has formally complained to the Home Secretary that 1,000 asylum seekers are being thrown into gaol every year simply because they pass through London airports on their way to other countries. It claims that, although many of them do not speak English, they are brought before the courts and jailed for up to nine months, most of them ending up in Wormwood Scrubs which, it is said, was castigated recently by the Chief Inspector of Prisons for its appalling conditions.
The article goes on to say that as a result of this case which was heard before Lord Justice Brown in the Divisional Court last week, the CPS told its chief prosecutor not to proceed with outstanding prosecutions against people accused of using false documents. At the end of the case Lord Justice Brown said that there will be people in prison who should not be. A final judgment in the judicial review is expected this week.
When the Minister replies, can he say whether it is true that the CPS decided not to proceed with outstanding prosecutions? What are the Government going to do about those people who have already been sentenced and who are now serving their sentences in prison? It seems to me that if the Government recognise the force of the Divisional Court's judgment, they owe

1637
a responsibility not only to those who would be prosecuted in the future but also to those already improperly convicted.
I also ask the Minister whether he will agree to publish the letter from the UNHCR mentioned at the end of that article in which grave concern is expressed about the potential violation of asylum seekers' rights. I asked the protection officer at the UNHCR representative's office in London whether I could have a copy. Quite properly, he told me that it was the property of the Minister and that I should seek to obtain a copy from him if I wanted to see what it said.
I shall give an example of the sort of thing that was happening until the case in the Divisional Court to which I have referred. It relates to an Algerian, Chouki Adimi, who came to the United Kingdom from Italy on false documents which he had obtained en route. He presented the documents at the airport with the intention of entering the United Kingdom to speak to his brother who already had leave to remain here and to get his advice about seeking asylum in the United Kingdom. However, he was caught at the airport because the Italian passport that he had presented was one of a number of stolen blanks, which was on the Heathrow computer. After a couple of hours, he admitted that he was not Italian but Algerian and that he wished to claim asylum. He was not allowed to claim asylum or to talk to his brother, but was held at Heathrow police station for removal the following day as an illegal entrant.
In the meantime, a solicitor had made an application for asylum on his behalf. It was pointed out that he could not return by France or Italy, through which he had transited, because neither of those countries recognised persons as refugees who were fleeing from non-state persecution. That was the subject of another judgment last week in the Court of Appeal, to which we shall have to return, not on this occasion but at Report stage.
He was charged with possession of false documents and appeared at Uxbridge Magistrates' Court in April 1998. The lawyers applied for an adjournment, stating that because he was protected by Article 31 of the refugee convention, the proceedings should be stayed pending the determination of his claim. That application was refused. In due course, however, the magistrates did allow an adjournment pending judicial review proceedings. On that occasion in November 1998, Mr Adimi was recognised as a refugee. However the CPS said that it would continue with the prosecution. I do not know what has happened to Mr Adimi. Perhaps the Minister will bear in mind that particular example when he replies.
These two amendments are designed to ensure that bona fide refugees are immune from prosecution when, in order to reach safety, they have resorted to some illegality. They do not require that they must have come directly from a country of persecution. They would apply to all refugees and asylum seekers except those who had already found refuge in another country and were moving to the United Kingdom for reasons of mere personal convenience.
These amendments are intended to apply to those resorting to false documents and clandestine entrance, and to all those who show false documents at port on disembarkation, in order to enter so as to seek asylum once in the country, or on embarkation after passing through the United Kingdom in order to seek asylum in another country, as well as to those who seek asylum at a port.
Regrettably, it has been found from research and the recent cases in the Divisional Court that the immigration service, police, Crown prosecutors and magistrates have for years been ignoring or misapplying Article 31 of the refugee convention. It is estimated that since 1994 many hundreds of bona fide refugees have been unlawfully imprisoned in breach of the UK's obligations because of this neglect and default. It is clearly wrong for that state of affairs to continue and imperative that the UK complies and is seen to comply with all her international and humanitarian obligations. I beg to move.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I support my noble friend Lord Avebury in this amendment and speak also to Amendment No. 195H with which it is grouped. The Committee may understand that Amendment No. 195H seeks to add a clause to Section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971 to make clear what may already exist by implication. However, from what my noble friend Lord Avebury said, that would appear to be highly contested, given the three cases which are currently being adjudicated, ex parte Kaziu, ex parte Adimi and ex parte Sorani.
The amendment seeks to insert into Section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971 a clause which makes it absolutely plain that someone who has lodged a claim for political asylum here, or is in transit to a place of political asylum, should not be subject to prosecution under Section 24(1)(a). That subsection allows a prosecution and indeed, leads to many prosecutions on the grounds that the person concerned,
"knowingly enters the United Kingdom in breach of a deportation order or without leave".
It is worthwhile making extremely plain our profound concern about the situation to which my noble friend has referred, as mentioned in the Independent leader. That is in relation to the United Nations Convention on Refugees 1951. I am sure that it is not necessary for either the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, or the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, to be reminded of the provisions of Article 31, but it may be of help to the Committee. Article 31 states:
"The Contracting States",
of which, of course, we are one,
"shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1, enter or are present in that territory without authorization".
That article of the convention has been, some would say, honoured in the breach by the United Kingdom authorities in case after case.
My noble friend Lord Avebury referred to the Adimi case. Perhaps it would emphasise and give vivid illustration to the point we are trying to make in this

1639
amendment to briefly refer to the facts of the Kaziu case. Mr Kaziu was bodyguard to President Berisha in Albania. He was subject to two assassination attempts in 1977 when President Berisha fell from power. He organised demonstrations when a member of the governing party—an MP of President Berisha's party—was murdered. In 1998 threats were made to him and to his parents.
A search was put out for him and he escaped in the only way he could, which was by using a false passport. There was no other way in which he had any other prospect of escaping. I am afraid that Greece is an unsafe country for Albanians. He went into Greece only as a means of escaping to the United Kingdom. He went to the United Kingdom only because he was en route to Canada where the prospects for Albanian refugees in his position seeking political asylum are a good deal better than they are even here.
He was hauled off the flight to Canada and prosecuted under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act for his false passport and for another offence and convicted at Uxbridge Magistrates' Court. Subsequently, he was lucky enough to obtain the services of Bernberg, Peirce and Co., who have brought judicial review proceedings on which, as my noble friend said, we are awaiting judgment.
I hope that going through those facts makes very clear the necessity for these amendments. Without them, there is no doubt that the muddles and unfairnesses of which the cases mentioned are but the tip of a large iceberg will continue. Therefore, I strongly urge the Government to consider these amendments favourably. Obviously, if the wording is imperfect in some respects, one would very readily accept whatever changes may be necessary, as long as the effect of the wording is preserved. Although the judgment of Lord Justice Simon Brown has not yet been delivered, he went as far as to say:
"Manifestly, somebody should be giving very careful consideration to our obligations under Article 31 and ensuring that procedures are in place to guard against violating them".
These amendments would do just that.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for drawing attention, by means of these amendments, to the important issue of whether prosecuting asylum seekers for fraud-related offences is consistent with our obligations under Article 31 of the 1951 refugee convention. Like quite a number of Members of the Committee, I imagine that the noble Lord is obviously aware that the Government are in correspondence with the London Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees on this precise issue. I have not actually seen the newspaper article that has been mentioned, but I assume that that is the correspondence to which the noble Lord was referring when he asked whether we could make it public. I can see no reason whatever why we should not make it public. However, I should point out that the correspondence is in fact addressed to the Attorney-General and, subject to his consent, we will make it public.
1640
The noble Lord also rightly said that this issue is the subject of judicial review proceedings before the High Court. I understand that the judgment on this is due to be handed down tomorrow. Obviously, that may have an effect on precisely where we go in that respect. However, even though a judgment is to he given tomorrow which may affect the situation, I believe I should say as much as I can about the issue at this stage.
The Government take their obligations under the 1951 convention extremely seriously. No one denies that the protection afforded by Article 31 is an important factor in the decision of whether or not to prosecute a person for fraud-related offences. The Crown Prosecution Service recognises that Article 31 may be relevant when deciding whether or not to bring a prosecution in these particular circumstances. In the light of the correspondence from the UNHCR. the CPS is convening a multi-agency forum to take a fresh look at policy and practice relating to this issue. We shall seek to involve the UNHCR in these discussions. We shall also wish to consider any comments or guidance that the court may offer arising from the cases that have been mentioned. The first meeting of this group has deliberately been deferred to allow this to he done. Perhaps I may emphasise again that the judgment could affect all of this in such a way that we might have to return to the drawing board; indeed, we just do not know at the moment.
Having outlined the background, perhaps I may turn to the amendments in question. My principal concerns about them are twofold. First, I am not convinced that they fully address the nature of the problem or that they provide a complete solution. Secondly, in seeking to ensure that there is not a breach of our obligations towards genuine refugees under Article 31(1), I am concerned that the amendments may go too far and also offer scope for the abuse of immigration control by others.
It is important to remember that there are limitations on the scope of Article 31; for example, concerning the time-scale within which an asylum claim must be made in order to fall within the benefit of that article. Therefore, the answer to the question whether Article 31 applies in a particular case will not always be straightforward. If we decide to opt for a legislative solution—and we have not ruled it out—the possibility of opening up opportunities for abuse may, to some extent, be unavoidable. But, if it is, I should want to reduce the risk of abuse to the absolute minimum. This means thinking about the legislative option in a slightly longer time-scale than these amendments would afford and doing so in the light of any guidance offered by the courts on the problem.
I have in mind Amendment No. 195G in particular which, as drafted, would apply not just to refugees but to anyone who claims asylum, whether or not his or her claim had any validity. However, there are also aspects of Amendment No. 195H which seem to go over and above what Article 31(1) would require. For example, if the prosecution is not inconsistent with Article 31(1), we doubt if it is necessary for the Attorney-General to have to give his consent as well.

1641
As I have said, we take our obligations under the convention extremely seriously and we await with interest the judgment of the High Court, which may of course be subject to appeal by one or more of the parties involved. We shall want to consider the outcome of this litigation carefully before deciding what steps are necessary. It may be that a legislative solution is not the best way forward. For example, it may be possible to introduce adequate administrative arrangements for proper co-ordination and exchanges of information between the CPS and the immigration service when the possibility arises of prosecuting for an offence of fraud a person who has or may claim asylum. Such arrangements may well be sufficient to meet our obligations under Article 31 and may be a better way forward.
I appreciate that the timetable for consideration of this Bill and the timing of the judgment are not matters over which the noble Lord has any control. However, I suggest that until the judgment has been read and considered it may be premature to go down the route of amending legislation. Whether or not that judgment is the last word, we ought at least to consider it, and any guidance it may contain, before any decision is made as to whether or not we need to legislate on this matter. This is not the last opportunity to consider this issue. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw these amendments and, if necessary, return to them at a later stage.
I shall deal with a number of points that have been made. I can confirm that the Director of Public Prosecutions has issued interim guidance to Crown Prosecution Service offices in the light of the comment made by Lord Justice Simon Brown that has been mentioned. I am afraid that I am not able to give the precise detail of that advice but I shall write to the noble Lord on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred to the Adimi case. This was the subject of judicial review proceedings. The CPS has already considered the issues raised by Article 31(1) and has decided that it does not prevent it bringing proceedings in that case. Of course, we must await the court's judgment on this point as the case has yet to come to trial. I think that is everything.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I think the Adimi case was heard along with the other two cases and I think that the judgment tomorrow will deal with all three.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am sure that is right. I am obliged to the noble Lord. As I think I have just said, we must await the judgment tomorrow.
Lord Avebury: I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his careful reply. Of course I did not expect him to accept these amendments just as they stand, bearing in mind that they were drafted in rather a hurry following my reading of the article in the Independent. I entirely accept what the noble and learned Lord said about the legislative route not necessarily being the right one. However, I am concerned that the multi-agency forum, which the noble
1642
and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said is to be convened by the CPS, may not hold many meetings over the summer months and that when we return in October we shall not be much wiser as regards what conclusions have been reached. As the noble and learned Lord said, we have to await the judgment tomorrow and allow the participants in the multi-agency forum time to consider that before they meet.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord can say a little more about the time-scale of these matters as that would be helpful. I hope that he can also say which agencies have been invited to participate in the forum. It seems to me essential that UNHCR and the chief protection officer there should be involved. It occurred to me only while the Minister was speaking that one possible solution is that where any doubt exists about the compatibility with Article 31 of any prosecution, the advice of UNHCR could be sought. If it issued no objection, as it were, it would be perfectly all right for the prosecution to proceed. However, if UNHCR said that it believed that there was some doubt about whether prosecuting a particular person was compatible with Article 31, it would be a good idea not to proceed.
What happens to all the cases that have been disposed of? If the estimate of the Independent is correct; namely, that 1,000 people have been prosecuted and imprisoned as a result of cases which were not properly brought under Article 31, that is an extremely serious matter. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will take that as seriously as did the Independent.
If the multi-agency forum is to deal with cases that may come before the courts in the future, it will be wrong if we do not at the same time address our minds to the people who are wrongly in prison as a result of breaches of Article 31 in the past. I foresee that if we do not do that the Government may be subject to civil proceedings for wrongful imprisonment. In the light of Lord Justice Simon Brown's judgment, and the confirmation of it by the Court of Appeal—if that takes place—people who have been wrongly imprisoned may subsequently take the Home Office to court and gain substantial compensation. Would not it be better to pre-empt that by addressing the wrongful imprisonment before it comes to that point and to allow all those people who were not dealt with properly under Article 31 to be released from custody?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: First, the organisations which will attend the multi-agency forum are the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, the immigration service and UNHCR. Secondly, we aim to have the meeting of the multi-agency forum in September, not October. Obviously, we do not know what the result will be tomorrow, but cases which have been disposed of may be subject to appeal. The case of Mr. Sorani—which is one of the appeals being considered by the Divisional Court, in relation to which judgment is to be handed down tomorrow—is an appeal which was out of time.

1643
So individual cases may still be raised as long as leave is given to appeal out of time. How they are then dealt with will depend on each individual case.
Lord Avebury: I shall have to let the matter rest there. There is not much more we can do until we see the judgment tomorrow. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 195H to 197 not moved.]
Clause 137 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 198 not moved.]
Clauses 138 to 141 agreed to.
Clause 142 [Visiting Committees and inspections]:
The Earl of Sandwich The Earl of Sandwich moved Amendment No. 198A:
Page 95, line 28, at end insert—
("(6) In any case where a child is detained in a detention centre under this Part of this Act, the Secretary of State shall arrange for an inspection of the detention centre by the Social Services Inspectorate not less than twice a year.").
The noble Earl said: I rise to move Amendment No. 198A which stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne.
The amendment seeks to provide for regular inspection by the Social Services Inspectorate of any detention centre where a child may be detained. Under the amendment, there would be statutory provision to place responsibility on the detention centres to safeguard the protection of children, corresponding to standards now provided by social service departments.
Under Clause 142, it appears that visiting committees can inspect as well as report, although the word "inspect" does not appear in the text of the Bill. Such visiting committees—formally appointed by the Secretary of State and funded by the Home Office—are not always, I suggest, impartial or qualified enough to assess children's needs, unlike regular inspections which could be carried out through the SSI under the Department of Health. In practice, visiting committees consist of groups of individuals who operate a rota system and report only occasionally. They do not carry out a full inspection.
This matter is urgent because, as we have heard, a large proportion of detainees are still awaiting their initial determinations. Many, including unaccompanied children, are detained for months or more than a year. The Refugee Council has worked with about 80 cases of unaccompanied refugee children detained in the past year, some in adult prisons.
Regular inspection by the SSI would help to promote good practice in the detention centres and ensure the best interests of children according to the principles of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child as translated into the Children Act 1989. Under that Act it is necessary to consider whether a child is being given the right to exercise his or her rights in practice.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, in the letter that I mentioned earlier, reassured me that under
1644
the present Bill the role of the visiting committees will be to,
"ensure that all detainees, including families, are treated in a fair and humane manner".
I am not sure that that implies an enhanced role, but I await the reply of the noble and learned Lord. I also recognise the valuable role of the Chief Inspector of Prisons, which is reinforced in the Bill.
However, I repeat that the work of those committees is not the same as regular inspection or the occasional visit by the Chief Inspector of Prisons; nor is it enough for the Secretary of State merely to have regard to the views of the local authority child protection officer, as the noble Lord pointed out in his letter, in respect of family accommodation, although I know that the Minister has been trying to help. Again, I look forward to hearing what he has to say.
Perhaps I may trespass on the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. Amendment No. 201 is grouped with this amendment. It seeks to ensure standards of childcare arid training which conform to those of local authorities. Apart from providing basic childcare services, I have learned that staff need to acquire skills in child development, counselling, ethnic minority needs, psychiatry and healthcare, among others.
As I have seen for myself at Campsfield House, it is not only the outward and visible signs that matter. I have information from Tinsly House at Gatwick, which known to aim at higher standards than elsewhere—despite what was said in the critical article this week in the Independent—that more activities are needed and that there are not enough skilled staff, especially at weekends, to cope with the low morale, to which I referred in a debate last week. That is compounded in the case of young people.
Some local authority social workers in Sussex—in other words, in the same area—are concerned about that apparent imbalance between standards in immigration provision as compared with those in social services. This amendment is designed to meet that concern. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: I am delighted to support Amendment No. 198A and to speak to Amendment No. 201. Amendment No. 201 is a probing amendment to seek assurances that if children are detained under immigration proceedings, childcare standards are comparable to those employed in other residential settings provided by local authorities.
The starting point underlying our concerns regarding the detention of children arises from examination of Article 31 of the 1951 convention. That exempts refugees coming directly from a country of persecution from being punished on account of their illegal entry or presence, provided that they show good cause.
The White Paper states in paragraph 12.3 that,
"detention is normally justified … where there is a reasonable belief that the individual will fail to keep the terms of temporary admission or temporary release; initially, to clarify a person's identity and the basis of their claim".

1645
While it is admitted that the detention of families and children is particularly regrettable, there is a presumption that detention will be used more frequently prior to status being determined.
I draw the attention of the Committee to UNHCR guidelines on applicable criteria and standards relating to the detention of asylum seekers. There are ample examples on those standards written by bodies working in the childcare field in this country.
If children are to be detained with their families within detention centres, together with unaccompanied children in "exceptional circumstances", there is a vital need for minimum standards in the management and structure of detention centres, and for all staff to have appropriate training to fulfil those conditions. Every effort must be made within the management of structure and practice in the centres to protect children from exploitation and discrimination. That cannot simply be left to the good intentions of the Secretary of State, but must be written into the Bill to set a legal framework of principles and standards.
We want to see standards within detention centres comply with the Government's obligations under domestic and international law to safeguard the welfare and rights of all children without exception, regardless of their age, status, nationality and gender. It is essential, therefore, that responsibilities to children are set out in the policy and procedures, and that they clearly set out children's opportunities to gain: experience of family life; provision for a suitable education—preferably outside the detention centre, so that there is equal access to a range of opportunities; provision for a child's early years in order to stimulate the development of personal skills, interests and intellect; specific attention to meeting the ethnic, cultural or religious needs of children; and the meeting of any special needs arising out of disabilities, mental health concerns, or other circumstances.
We should like assurances as to how detention centres will not only safeguard children's distinct needs, but also promote their development, incorporating the essential aspects that form part of that development, as set out in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989. Given government assurances that children will receive support that is comparable to local authority provision under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989, we should like clarification as to how social services will be able to assess the needs of children, if not those of their families, within detention centres.
Other statutory services which provide residential accommodation for children and young people for whatever purpose, would ensure that staff have the skills and knowledge, acquired through induction and in-service training, to implement the service.
Earl Russell: I hope that the amendment will be taken to refer to those who may be reasonably suspected of being children. The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, whom I am glad to see in his place again, will remember the case of the Ramsbotham Report on Campsfield House. It indicated
1646
that no children had been admitted to Campsfield, but that 49 had been discharged into the care of Bicester social services. Campsfield House has not discovered how to reverse the rules of chronology. So that example makes my point.
Lord Hylton: I support all three amendments in this group. My noble friend Lord Sandwich made a valuable point about inspections. It seems to me that they are absolutely necessary as a precaution against abuses and malpractices. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will look with particular sympathy on the amendment in view of his previous experience of problems that have arisen in the past in children's homes in this country.
Before turning to Amendment No. 201, it would be very helpful, and would decrease the need for frequent inspections, if the Government could give an assurance that every child who is detained in the absence of his parents or other adult relatives will be referred immediately to the Official Solicitor. The Official Solicitor understands fully the needs of children, particularly those in dispute, those who are subject to official proceedings or those who are detained. He can ensure that staff take the appropriate action.
I turn to Amendment No. 201. It is almost ridiculous to expect the employees of private contractors who run detention centres, or prison officers, to understand what is involved in the proper care of detained children. That is why training is so necessary.
As to Amendment No. 203, the rules to be made should specify that where adults are present in this country the relevant children are always detained in the same place as those adults. On the other hand, if there are no adults the children should be accommodated, in so far as possible, completely separately.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I begin by expressing sympathy for Amendments Nos. 199 and 200, both of which have already been spoken to effectively. In particular, I refer to Amendment No. 207, which is also part of this group.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: As I understand it, the Committee is considering Amendments Nos. 198A, 201 and 203.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I beg the Committee's pardon.
The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells: I rise briefly to support Amendments Nos. 198A and 201. Amendment No. 198A in no way suggests that visitor committees are not of great value. I am sure that noble Lords have observed the usefulness of those committees. I emphasise that this is a skilful business which requires sharpness on the part of the Social Services Inspectorate.
As was made clear earlier, sometimes matters that one believes should be on the face of the Bill because they are helpful and supportive to those who enter the system are left out and those which need not necessarily be on

1647
the face of the Bill, because they are already part of the law of the land, are put in. In part, perhaps that explains the provision's dual tone and why it appears to be harder than it is intended to be. Amendment No. 201 is essential. Obviously, it is regrettable that children should be held in detention at all under these procedures, but even if it is for a very short time they should receive proper education and care. That those who care for them should have the appropriate training is something that should be on the face of the Bill, to go with those "harder" matters, as it were, which are already on the face of the Bill.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I apologise to the Committee. My attention momentarily wandered. I support Amendment No. 198A moved by the noble Earl. Lord Sandwich, and the other two amendments in the group. The position of detained children is important. We all have sympathy with the intention and want to ensure that these children have the best possible conditions if it is absolutely essential to detain them.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: As to this group of amendments, we all share the concerns expressed in different ways but with the same degree of emphasis. We believe that where families or children are exceptionally detained—I emphasise "exceptionally"—the accommodation and surroundings must be suitable for their needs. The Committee will be aware that detention centre rules will be made under Clause 143. It is worth reminding ourselves that, under subsection (2), the,
"rules may, among other things, make provision with respect to the safety, care, activities, discipline and control of detained persons".
Taking up the theme of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, safety, care and activities seem to be rightly placed at the forefront.
Therefore, we shall be setting out, under Clause 143 rules, detailed provisions about accommodation and facilities to be provided for detained families and children. For example, separate living accommodation will he required. Staff coming into contact with children will have to have basic childcare training. One of the key functions of the visiting committees—a point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich—will be to monitor and report on the proper implementation of detention centre rules.
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, referred also, I believe, to Clause 142. That makes provision for the inspection of all detention centres by the Chief Inspector of Prisons. It is fair to say that his history indicates that Sir David Ramsbotham, as Chief Inspector of Prisons, is well known for his abundant willingness to involve specialist inspectors in this work. However, despite that, I undertake specifically to draw to his attention the anxieties which have been mentioned and suggest the involvement of social services inspectors, if necessary. He will, of course, be able to invite such further specialists as he thinks fit. His office will be under a statutory duty to report on the treatment of all detainees, including families, and on the condition of detention centres. I repeat that his past track record does not
1648
indicate someone who is not going to be vigorous in reporting, detecting and—with due deference to him—complaining vigorously.
I shall take on board the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, about the automatic referral to the Official Solicitor. It is worth thinking about. I wish to reflect on that and possibly to write to him. If the point is referred to at Report stage I shall deal with it then.
I believe that these measures, together with the undertaking I have given about drawing the attention of Sir David Ramsbotham to the SSI inspectorate, will provide for independent and objective scrutiny of detention centres and an appropriate level of statutory regulation.
There is only one discrete facility at the moment for the detention of families. It was designed and developed in consultation with the local authority child protection officer. That was a point raised by two Members of the Committee. I can assure the Committee that the Secretary of State will continue to have regard to the views of the local authority child protection officer as regards any future provision of family accommodation.
I turn now to Amendment No. 201. I agree entirely that, where children are detained, those charged with looking after their well-being should have the necessary, appropriate level of specialist training. That is implicit in Clause 144(2)(b), which, as the Committee will have seen, requires training appropriate to the performance of the functions of detainee custody officers.
We shall require contractors, as now, to ensure that a suitable number of detainee custody officers have basic childcare training so that they can accommodate and look after children where necessary.
As regards Amendment No. 203, I assure the Committee that detention centre rules will contain special provisions in respect of children in a number of areas and one of them will be the present one. The objective of Schedule 11, paragraph 1, is to regulate the measuring and photographing of detained persons in detention centre rules. That will mirror the position in the equivalent context under Section 16 of the Prison Act 1952. The list in subparagraph (2) is illustrative only.
Perhaps I may say one further thing. Children are detained on their own only in the most exceptional and justifiable circumstances, such as arriving at an airport, perhaps late at night, and cannot be placed with a relative or the social services who are unable to look after the child immediately. That is only for as short a time as possible before the social services are able to take up their responsibility. I welcome the fact that these amendments were tabled and even more so that they were fully spoken to. I hope I have been able to give useful reassurance.
Lord Avebury: Before the Minister sits down, can he tell the Committee whether the separate accommodation for families with children about which

1649
he spoke will be provided in the new building at Aldington and Heathrow, or in the converted buildings which may be provided at Lindholme?
Lord Hylton: Before the Minister replies, he referred to Clause 144 which has the rubric Detainee custody officers. We all know what that means in the context of police stations. However, in the context of detention centres, does it refer only to someone who deals with admissions and discharges, or with the whole staff who may come into contact with children? It is the latter who so urgently need the training already referred to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: One finds the answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, in the side rubric to Clause 144. Detainee custody officers relate to those who are applicants
"authorised to perform escort functions; or … authorised to perform both escort functions and custodial functions".
So the definition is to be found in Clause 144.
In respect of the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, I repeat that the detention centre rules under Clause 143 will set out detailed provisions about accommodation facilities. I repeat: separate living accommodation will be required.
The Earl of Sandwich: The Minister was so helpful on Amendment No. 188A that I was far too enthusiastic on Amendment No. 198A. I understand that he could not meet all the points raised in the speech moving the amendment. It was intended to be a probing amendment. The noble Lord has been reassuring about the role of the inspector of prisons. I shall consider the matter carefully. We may have to return to the issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I wish to be as helpful as I can to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I gave a general answer. I can now be more specific. The noble Lord is entitled to the answer, as is the Committee. There will not be any provision for family and children accommodation in Lindholme, so his question does not arise. Three or four family rooms will be planned for Aldington and the new centre at Heathrow. I hope that that is of further assistance to the noble Lord.
Lord Avebury: What happens if families with children have to be detained in the north? That is what Lindholme is being specifically converted to deal with.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I should never attempt to be more helpful than exigency demands. I thought that I was being as generous as I possibly could be by reassuring the Committee. One of these days I shall learn the lesson.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 142 agreed to.
Clause 143 [Detention centre rules]:
Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby moved Amendment No. 199:
Page 95, line 32, leave out ("safety, care").
The noble Baroness said: If Amendments Nos. 196 and 197 had been moved, I may not have had to move this amendment. However, since those amendments were not moved, and we have to consider the possibility that people with a history of persecution or torture, or those with a history of rape or other sexual violence, may find themselves detained, it is important that I move the amendment. It is intended to be a probing amendment about the provision for medical care within detention centres.
We seek to find out the provision for the safety and care of detainees. We are concerned about procedures to be followed for detainees with a history of torture. That means counselling facilities and facilities to deal with psychological problems. We are concerned about access to independent medical advice. That fits directly with the kind concession by the Government at an earlier stage when they agreed that people could travel for independent medical advice if, for example, they sought to prove allegations of torture. In the case of a detainee, that might not be practicable. Therefore, we are asking whether such access can be provided in detention centres.
Finally, in paragraph (d) we deal with the issue of access to independent medical opinions. That relates in particular to support for applications for asylum or protection under the Human Rights Act. I shall not waste the Committee's time. We should like to receive another helpful answer from the Government about the provision of medical advice when available in the detention centre or the means to obtain that advice from outside. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I have some sympathy with the two amendments spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, but I wish to refer to Amendment No. 207 standing in my name. It takes up the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee that it would be more appropriate for these rules to be subject to the affirmative procedure. That is right.
The Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee has usually received your Lordships' acquiescence in its recommendations and I believe that it should do so in this case.
Earl Russell: The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will remember the case about which my noble friend Lord Avebury and I corresponded with him and on which he was, as usual, extremely helpful. It was of a Nigerian asylum seeker who, after his normal appeal process had been exhausted, was found and demonstrated conclusively to have been a victim of torture.
The late diagnosis of cases of torture and the late revealing of evidence of torture are perennial problems and are particularly relevant to this amendment. The

1651
most important part is that which provides for the obtaining of medical opinions in cases of torture. We entirely agree with Ministers that we cannot simply rely on every asylum seeker claiming torture and saying that they are all victims. We need evidence.
There could be advantages to all parties in doctors being available within the official context who can provide evidence that is officially recognised as competent and normally reliable. It would save us all a great deal of trouble. That is one of many reasons why I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I entirely appreciate the reasoning behind Amendments Nos. 199 and 200. I say straightaway that the detention centre rules will contain arrangements for the provision of medical care and specialist counselling services for victims of torture. I also make it clear that they will make provision about access to detention centres for those who have been unable to provide independent medical advice or opinions. It is the Government's policy, as set out in the White Paper, to exercise particular care when deciding whether to detain those who may exhibit physical or mental health problems. In particular, any evidence of a history of torture would weigh strongly in favour of temporary admission to this country while an individual's asylum claim was being considered.
Therefore, we must recognise that some of the protection offered by Amendment No. 200 will be necessary only in exceptional cases where it is inappropriate to release those with medical or mental problems, at least in the short term which would be the preferred course.
The object of Clause 143 is to provide a statutory framework covering all aspects of the management and administration of detention. The aim of the rules would be to ensure that detainees are held in a safe, secure and humane environment. That is what the Chief Inspector of Prisons recommended and that is what we intend to deliver. I agree that the rules should set out many of the issues highlighted by Amendment No. 200 and I have indicated specifically those which have caused particular concern to noble Lords.
It must be said that the same can be said of a whole host of other issues not raised either in the amendment or in the clause as it stands. That is why Clause 143 provides only an illustration of the areas which may be provided for in detention centre rules. It would be inappropriate to seek to list in the clause every specific area in which provision will be made. I hope that that explains why we have drafted the provision in such a way and that it reassures the noble Baroness. It follows that I cannot accept Amendment No. 200, and, as a consequence, Amendment No. 199.
To return to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, which concerns a different point, Clause 143 requires the Secretary of State to make the rules for the regulation of management of detention centres. The aim of the rules will be to ensure a safe, secure and humane environment. This imposition of statutory rules will give effect to one of the key recommendations of the Chief Inspector of Prisons. It is
1652
proposed to follow identical parliamentary procedures for detention centre rules to those used for the prison rules made under the Prison Act 1952. Since an amendment made under the Criminal Justice Act 1967, these rules have been subject to the negative procedure.
I am aware that the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee recommended that consideration should be given to subjecting detention centre rules to the affirmative procedure in keeping with Amendment No. 207. However, for the reasons I have given I am satisfied that the negative resolution procedure provides an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny and provides a necessary symmetry to the existing procedure for making prison rules. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will not feel obliged to press his amendment.
11 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I thank the Minister for what he has said about Amendments Nos. 199 and 200. He has given us the information we wanted and we are grateful for that. Before I withdraw the amendment, perhaps I may put one question to him. In his remarks he said that special concern would be shown towards those found to be the subjects of torture and that as far as possible they would not be detained. We are worried by what appears to be some incompatibility with a letter dated 26th July received by my noble friend Lord Avebury and signed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. The letter states:
"those requiring health care or medical treatment available only in prison, in circumstances where it is not appropriate for the person to he released or placed under long-term hospital watch in an NHS hospital".
We are a little concerned that could be read as saying that where someone needed certain healthcare or medical treatment, as many victims of torture would, it might be more likely that they would be sent to a prison. We hope that that is not the right interpretation because that would be somewhat incompatible with the welcome reassurance that the Minister has just given us.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I have not seen the letter to which the noble Baroness referred. I shall repeat what I said earlier. We must recognise that some of the protection offered by the noble Baroness's amendment will be necessary only in exceptional cases where it is inappropriate to release those with medical or mental problems, at least in the short term. I was making it clear that it was only in the exceptional case that it would be inappropriate to release those with medical or mental problems; that is, it would be normal to release such people.
I have not fully taken on board what has been said. I shall speak to the officials, have a look at the letter and then write to the noble Baroness to clarify the position.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 200 not moved.]
Clause 143 agreed to.
Clause 144 [Detainee custody officers]:
[Amendment No. 201 not moved.]
Clause 144 agreed to.
Clause 145 agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Detainee Custody Officers]:
[Amendment No. 202 not moved.]
Schedule 10 agreed to.
Schedule 11 [Discipline etc at Detention Centres]:
[Amendment No. 203 not moved.]
Schedule 11 agreed to.
Clause 146 [Arrangements for the provision of escorts and custody]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 203A:
Page 97, line 1, leave out from ("the") to end of line 2 and insert ("Commission").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 146, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 12 agreed to.
Clauses 147 to 153 agreed to.
Clause 154 [Regulations and orders]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 203B:
Page 102, line 18, at end insert—
("() But subsection (1) does not apply in relation to rules made under paragraph 1 of Schedule 5 or immigration rules.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 203C:
Page 102, line 19. leave out ("such statutory instrument") and insert ("statutory instrument made as a result of subsection (1)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 204:
Page 102, line 28, at end insert—
("() Part VI,
() paragraph 1 of Schedule 8,").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 204, 205, 206 and 208, tabled in my name, take up recommendations made by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. Amendments Nos. 204 and 205 would put in place the affirmative procedure for the whole of Part VI of the Bill. At present, only small areas of Part VI are covered. The committee recommended that the whole of Part VI should be included.
Amendment No. 206 also follows from the recommendations of that committee about Clause 95, which it suggested should be subject to affirmative procedure. Amendment No. 208 is a slightly different recommendation but nevertheless an interesting one. Amendment No. 209, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and her colleagues, has exactly the same intention as Amendment No. 208, although a slightly different formulation has been chosen. I am not sure that there is any effective difference between them.
We have on the face of the Bill, as with other Bills, a statement under the Human Rights Act in which the Minister confirms that in his view the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the convention rights. Nevertheless, throughout the Bill appear important matters which are to be the subject of secondary legislation. At present there is no way in which the Minister needs to say whether or not such orders and other secondary legislation are compatible with convention rights. The committee suggests, both in respect of this Bill where particularly important secondary legislation is provided for, but also no doubt more generally, that there should be statements similar to those that appear on Bills in respect of statutory instruments being tabled for consideration by your Lordships' House. That seems to be an important point of principle which goes wider than this Bill. Nevertheless, this Bill is a very good example of a Bill containing a large numbers of such powers. I hope that the principle that lies behind Amendments Nos. 208 and 209 is acceptable to Ministers.
As this is the last group of amendments in my name, perhaps I may take the opportunity to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, for his patience and courtesy, and ask him to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, who has also been extremely patient and courteous throughout this Committee stage. As he has withdrawn from our proceedings, I must ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, to pass on to him our congratulations on his appointment as Her Majesty's Attorney General, if the tape is to be believed. We hope that that will not prevent him taking part in our proceedings in future, maybe even on the later stages of the Bill, to which we shall have to return with regard to some of the points we have raised over the past few days. I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I rise to support this group of amendments, and in particular Amendments Nos. 208 and 209, but first I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, with regard to the appointment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. I had been instructed that I was not to give vent to these congratulations. I apologise for doing so; I feel that I am covered by the noble Lord. Lord Cope of Berkeley, so nobody can complain that I let the cat out of the bag before anybody else.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My information comes only from the tape. Whether it is correct or not, others will have to say.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It was on Sky News at 9 o'clock.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: In that case, we are relieved of any burden, and can give vent to our enthusiasm.
We can also say that in tabling Amendment No. 209 we are seeking to give the new noble and learned Lord, the Attorney General, great relief in his new operation, since clearly one of the things he will have to deal with will be any incompatibility between the Bill and the

1655
European Convention on Human Rights. So we seek only to make his life easier, and I shall address Amendment No. 209 with that in mind.
As the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, said, there are some 60 provisions in the Bill under which secondary regulations can be made, some of them very deeply affecting civil liberties. It is also the case that many of them are issues that could, depending on how they were interpreted, fall foul of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the words of the compliance statement of Justice, a body which all of us in the Committee profoundly respect,
"In some cases, this may mean that the provisions fall foul of the ECHR requirement that any interference with rights is clearly 'prescribed by law' … the breadth of the delegated powers is such that significant breaches of human rights in the regulations or their implementation cannot be ruled out".
On that basis, it calls for secondary legislation with a human rights impact to be certified and to require the affirmative resolution of Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, has already referred to the strongly stated view of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation to the effect that it believes, too, that there should be a requirement laid upon the Bill for the compatibility of secondary legislation to be stated clearly when any immigration and other rules subject to the affirmative procedure are laid before the House of Lords. Again, that suggests that we should take its recommendation extremely seriously.
I should like to make one final point. I was much engaged in the discussion on the incorporation into British law of the European Convention on Human Rights as I was one of the two spokesmen for my party on the matter in this House. The Committee will recall that there was a good deal of discussion at that time about whether there should be a human rights commission. The Government's view was that the time was not yet ripe for a commission on human rights, but they said on more than one occasion that they believed that there should be a parliamentary Select Committee. I understand that that committee has not yet been set up, and that therefore there is not at present a system for scrutinising secondary legislation in terms of its compatibility with the European convention. Many of us hope that a parliamentary committee, when established, will undertake that as one of its primary tasks. My understanding is that the Select Committee on delegated legislation so recommended to the Royal Commission on the Reform of the House of Lords, strongly suggesting that a Select Committee should be charged with responsibility for that compatibility with respect to secondary legislation. Given that that proposal was made so strongly by the committee; given also that we do not yet have a parliamentary Select Committee to undertake that task, it seems to us on these Benches all the more important that the Government concede on this amendment which, while the last amendment, is not one of the less important ones.
Finally, like the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, since I do not propose to rise again for more than a moment, perhaps I may not only pay great tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, and his noble and
1656
learned colleague, Lord Falconer, but also pay tribute to the Government Whip for his patience; and for the expressions on his face which sometimes tell us that we have simply gone on longer than he can bear, but somehow he manages to bear it. We appreciate his sheer endurance during the course of this Bill and we express our thanks to him as well as his ministerial colleagues and others who have taken part in these long debates.
11.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: Perhaps I may trespass upon the Committee also long enough to express my congratulations to the now noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, on his promotion. He has been a most distinguished occupant of his former position. It has been a great pleasure to cross swords with him and an even greater pleasure to co-operate with him. There is no Minister with whom I have more enjoyed arguing since I have come to this Chamber. I shall miss him. But he will be a great ornament to the new office in which he is placed. It will be an honour to this House to have the Attorney-General in it.
The amendments in this group may serve to keep the Government out of trouble. As my recollection goes, the powers of the judges in relation to regulations incompatible with the convention are far more extensive than in relation to statutes incompatible with the convention. The judges are to presume that if the regulations are not compatible with the convention they are contrary to the intention of Parliament, which is assumed to have been to comply with the convention. So if the Government check out regulations early, they may keep themselves out of a good deal of trouble. They may like that.
Lord Hylton: I am sure that this group of amendments is extremely important and I trust, the Government will look upon it sympathetically.
I join in the congratulations already expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, and say this. I hope that the Government will succeed in finding a new Minister responsible for prisons of equal calibre and forward-looking attitude. He has been exceedingly helpful on that front and I am sure that his personal qualifications were such as to cut through a great deal of traditional Home Office attitudes and Prison Service difficulties.
Lord Dholakia: I, too, associate myself with the congratulations from this side. It is a great occasion on which to receive such wonderful news. The sheer courtesy and concern about issues that we raised with him, not only in the debating Chamber here, but also privately, were always present. He never hesitated to reply in the most courteous way. Whenever he disagreed, he did so in the nicest possible way. But more importantly, he opened the door of the Home Office to many of us to sit down with him to raise our concerns. That is reflected in the number of occasions when he

1657
has given way to us. I ask the noble and learned Lord to convey our good wishes to him and we look forward to his success in his new job.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: From these Benches we, too, add our congratulations and thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. I have probably known him a lesser time than most Members of the Committee, but found him to be a man with a formidable brain, a gracious nature, and a wonderful pained expression when Members of the Committee disagreed with him. We shall certainly miss him. As for the amendments, they seem eminently sensible.
Lord Avebury: I add to the tributes expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. One feature that he has brought to our debates, which we shall very sadly miss, is the touch of humour which he always displays and the nice little jokes he puts into his asides from the Dispatch Box.
I would also like to say how much I have appreciated the noble Lord's willingness to enter into correspondence on the detail of this Bill, which I believe has facilitated our discussions and has helped us to go forward and reach agreements on many issues in relation to which we thought there was a greater division between us. The noble Lord's assiduity and courtesy in always replying so promptly to all the letters addressed to him about the subject matter of the Bill has helped it forward greatly.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am grateful to the noble Lords for their explanation of the reasons for these amendments which flow from the report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. I understand their reasons and I respect them. The Government, as your Lordships would expect, gave very careful consideration to the Select Committee's report. We accepted a number of the recommendations, but not all of them.
I deal first with Amendments Nos. 204, 205 and 206. These concern the powers under Part VI of the Bill. We are all agreed in this House that Part VI introduces some important and sensitive provisions. The Government are as aware of this as anyone, and that is only as it should be. I believe that Amendment No. 204 is intended to require all regulations made under Part VI and paragraph 1 of Schedule 8, which concerns interim arrangements, to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. For various technical reasons, I do not believe that it achieves that. However, I shall deal with what I understand to be the intention of the amendments rather than take up time on technical points.
It is fair to say that the Select Committee's report left some room for doubt about the extent to which it believed that the affirmative procedure was justified in relation to each of the powers under Part VI. We have given very careful consideration to the nature of the powers in Part VI on the assumption that the committee intended that the affirmative procedure should apply throughout. We do not believe that it is right to use the affirmative procedure solely because of the role which
1658
a particular group of clauses plays in the operation of a Bill or, even more widely, for every power within a particular part of a Bill. We believe that each power should be judged on its individual merits in order to determine whether the affirmative or negative procedure is appropriate.
On the basis of the report, the Government reconsidered the powers to make delegated legislation in Part VI. Although the provisions in these clauses are important, each of the delegated powers is intended to deal with matters of detail which are generally subject to negative procedure in other, similar legislation.
When one looks at other comparable legislation, most of the provisions on entitlement to social security benefits are made by the negative resolution procedure under the Social Security (Contributions and Benefits) Act 1992. That is one example which, in our view, justifies the use of the negative procedure for the various powers to set out the detail of the scheme. In addition, some of the powers in these clauses might need to be exercised quickly and when Parliament is not sitting, which further strengthens our view that the negative procedure is more appropriate.
If one looks more widely at some of the other powers in Part VI, it is very difficult to justify the use of the affirmative procedure. For example, Clause 114 contains a power to make regulations to enable those recognised as refugees to be able to apply for back-dated benefits to which they might be entitled. The clause is almost identical to the provisions of Section 11 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, which also provided for regulations to be made by the negative procedure. We see no reason to depart from that precedent. Indeed. none has been given, either in the report or in the course of this short debate.
Amendment No. 206 picks up the Select Committee's specific recommendation that the power in Clause 95 to make regulations governing asylum support appeals should also be subject to the affirmative procedure. We again looked at the arguments and the provisions in comparable legislation to help us assess which procedure was more appropriate. The rules to be made under this clause will be procedure rules governing the conduct of appeals. In other similar legislation, such procedure rules are made using the negative procedure. We believe that the same degree of scrutiny is justified for those procedure rules. They will, of course, also be subject to the scrutiny of the Council on Tribunals. We have looked at this matter very carefully. Having done so, we remain of the view that the powers in Clauses 86(5) and 87(3) are the only powers in Part VI which should be exercised by means of the affirmative procedure.
The Select Committee made a further specific recommendation in relation to Clause 87(3) which, as I indicated in our previous session, the Government are considering how best to tackle, and to which we intend to return on Report.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 208 and 209. These amendments both flow from the recommendation in the Select Committee's report that delegated powers subject to the affirmative resolution procedure should be

1659
accompanied by a statement confirming compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights. That would be the effect of Amendment No. 209 in the name of the noble Baroness. Amendment No. 208 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, goes further than that and would require a compliance statement in relation to statutory instruments made under the affirmative and negative procedures. But the amendment is, I believe, deficient, in that it does not specify the convention to which the statement should relate.
The Government believe that these amendments are unnecessary. I should make it quite clear that disagreement with the amendments in no way impinges on the Government's commitment to safeguarding human rights, which is absolute. I invite the Committee to consider my comments in the context of this commitment from a Government who have brought the Human Rights Act 1998 onto the statute book.
Amendment No. 208 relates to statutory instruments subject to the negative resolution procedure. As I have already said in relation to the amendments in this grouping relating to Part VI, the powers are intended to deal with matters of detail. They are not issues likely to raise human rights issues. If any such statutory instrument did raise concerns about compatibility with the ECHR, the instrument could, of course, be prayed against. For those powers subject to affirmative resolution procedure, there is an opportunity for the Minister introducing the debate to comment upon any relevant ECHR compatibility issues or for Members of either House to raise such issues.
In addition, there are already a number of safeguards contained in the Human Rights Act itself to ensure compatibility of secondary legislation. Under the Act the courts can strike down and disapply secondary legislation which they hold to be incompatible with the convention rights. It will be unlawful for public authorities to act in any way which is incompatible with the convention. The Act also establishes a duty to interpret legislation compatibly with the convention rights.
The Government were not, therefore, persuaded that it was right to introduce a new formal requirement of the kind proposed by the Select Committee. But I emphasise that in the case of regulations subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, there will be ample opportunity for Ministers to deal with ECHR matters if appropriate and for others to raise such issues in the course of debate. In those circumstances, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Finally, I turn to government Amendment No. 207D, which forms part of this grouping. The effect of this amendment would be to exempt from parliamentary procedure the commencement provisions set out in subsections (2) and (7), as well as subsection (4), of Clause 158. As the Committee will be aware, Clause 158(4) confers the usual power to commence the provisions of the Bill on such days as the Secretary of State may by order appoint. This power is subject to certain specific provisions made by Clause 158. This includes the provision, under subsection (2), that
1660
Clause 85(1)—the Secretary of State's power to provide arrangements for asylum seekers and their dependants—is to come into force on the same day as Clause 106, which concerns their exclusion from benefits. Subsection (7) enables the extension of any of the provisions of the Bill to any of the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man. That power is conferred on Her Majesty by Order in Council.
Subsections (2) and (7) are currently subject to the negative resolution procedure. However, the Home Office Memorandum to the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation made it clear that the Government were considering whether the powers they confer could properly and appropriately be exercised without the need for parliamentary scrutiny, given their very limited nature; and we now believe that parliamentary control is unnecessary in both cases.
The power in subsection (2) will be used simply to commence Clauses 85(1) and 106 simultaneously, a requirement which is set out on the face of the Bill. Subsection (7) simply extends the geographical coverage of the Bill to the islands. Many of the provisions in the 1971 Immigration Act are extended to the islands by Order in Council under Section 36 of the 1971 Act, which does not provide for parliamentary procedure; the amendment would therefore align the power in subsection (2) with existing practice. I should add that all such orders are, of course, made in close consultation with the islands.
I invite your Lordships to accept this amendment, and to reject Amendments Nos. 204, 205, 206, 208 and 209.
Perhaps I may make two entirely separate, unconnected points. First, if what is said on "Sky News" is true and the man who, when he left, was my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn has become my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General, perhaps I may make four remarks.
First, he will be the first Attorney-General for over 400 years to be in the House of Lords. I can think of no finer lawyer and parliamentarian to be Attorney-General than my noble and learned friend Lord Williams of Mostyn. Secondly, he is a man whom the Bar will regard as one of the finest lawyers of his generation to be chosen as Attorney-General. Thirdly, I am sure that the House of Lords regards him as one of the finest parliamentarians of this Parliament to become Attorney-General. Fourthly, he is not going away so one should not talk about him as though he has left this House for ever. I am sure that he will be here regularly conducting debates in the same skilful and attractive way that he has for the past two years.
I invite the Committee to reject Amendments Nos. 204, 205, 206, 208 and 209.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I shall not add to what we have said about the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, except to hope that the tape and "Sky News" prove correct, for all the reasons that the noble and learned Lord has just given.

1661
However, as for this group of amendments, I must say that I regard the Minister's reply with the utmost seriousness. I understand that this Chamber has been extremely attentive to the recommendations of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation in the past, but, in the past hour, the noble and learned Lord has rejected quite a few of its recommendations. He suggested that some of them were not all that strong, especially in relation to Part VI.
Therefore, perhaps I may quote from paragraph 37 of the Select Committee's report, which begins with the words:
"The Committee has made the following recommendations".
It then sets them out extremely briefly, until it gets to the relevant one, which says that,
"regulations under Part VI of the bill and the powers in clauses 95 and 143 which are subject to negative procedure should more appropriately be subject to affirmative control".
That sounds to me to be a pretty direct recommendation. Clearly it is a matter which we will certainly wish to consider in the interim before the Report stage. Perhaps the Select Committee will also wish to consider what the noble and learned Lord has said in deciding whether or not to make a further report to the House on the propositions contained in these amendments. However, I shall not pursue the matter further at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 205 and 206 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 206A:
Page 102, line 31, leave out paragraph (f).
n Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 207 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendments Nos. 207A to 207D:
Page 102, line 36, after ("7,") insert—
("() section (General right to be released on bail)(6),").
Page 102, line 37. leave out paragraph (b).
Page 102, line 37, at end insert—
("() section 135,").
Page 102, line 42, leave out (" 158(4)") and insert (" 158(2), (4) or (7)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 208 not moved.]
Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 209:
Page 102, line 43, at end insert—
("() Any statutory instrument or draft statutory instrument subject to the affirmative procedure must be accompanied by a certificate by the relevant Minister to the effect that it is fully compatible with the European Convention of Human Rights.").
The noble Baroness said: Perhaps I may add one grace note to the chorus of praise that has attended the promotion of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, to the position of Attorney-General. My noble friend
1662
Lord Russell informs me, perhaps unreliably, that one of the noble Lord's predecessors as Attorney-General in this House was Francis Bacon. My noble friend further informs me that the latter's comment on his experience was that he would prefer the upper world to the upper House. I notice that the noble and learned Lord is shaking his head. He will have to sort it out with my noble friend, rather than with me.
However, like the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, I cannot end on a grace note; indeed, I wish I could. I, too, deeply regret the Minister's rejection of these two amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, referred to his own proposals for the strengthening and the widening of affirmative resolution procedures. We strongly agree with that. We did not table a further amendment because the noble Lord's amendment was one which completely met our own requirements in this respect.
I have to say that I have an equal concern about the decision not to accept the strong proposal of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation that secondary legislation should be accompanied by a resolution informing the House that the Minister is satisfied that the instrument is compatible with convention rights.
I make a practical point to the Minister but, I think, one that is not completely unworthy. Like the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, I too have been a Minister. As a Minister one is aware of the perpetual pressure on one's time. It becomes a kind of nightmare. If a requirement is laid on a Minister, Ministers have to assess how that requirement can be met. If no such requirement is laid, it is always tempting to let the matter rest and hope that no one will notice.
When we have so recently accepted the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into British law, that seems to us—as it did to the Select Committee—a crucial moment to draw Ministers' attention to the importance of compatibility with convention rights. I think the committee was absolutely right to recommend that to Parliament and to make it a requirement of secondary regulation under the affirmative procedure. I hope that the Minister will think again. It is important that he does, not least on a Bill that has been described by both Justice and the Select Committee precisely as a Bill that could give rise to incompatibilities at the level of secondary legislation.
I do not wish to detain the Committee for much longer, except to say that I fully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, that to reject a recommendation of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers is a grave thing to do because that Select Committee has proved to be an amazing defender of all our liberties and of the rights of this Chamber. I believe that that is a tradition that we should continue and that we should reject one of the committee's recommendations only for the strongest possible reasons. I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 209 not moved.]
Clause 154, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 210 not moved.]
Clause 155 [Interpretation]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 210ZA:
Page 103, line 7, after ("VI") insert ("and section 132").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendments Nos. 210A and 210B:
Page 103, line 10, at end insert—
(""the Commission" means the Special Immigration Appeals Commission;").
Page 103, line 35, at end insert—
(""illegal entrant";").
The noble and learned Lord said: These amendments have already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 155, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 156 [Expenditure and receipts]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 210C:
Page 104, line 2, after ("39(3)") insert ("or (Forfeiture of securities)(4)").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 156, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 157 agreed to.
Clause 158 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
[Amendment No. 211 not moved.]
Clause 158 agreed to.
Schedule 13 [Consequential Amendments]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 211A:
Page 137, line 7, at end insert—
(".—(1) Section 10 (entry otherwise than by sea or air) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), omit from "and any such Order" to the end.
(3) After subsection (1), insert—
"(1A) Her Majesty may by Order in Council direct that paragraph 27B or 27C of Schedule 2 shall have effect in relation to trains or vehicles as it has effect in relation to ships or aircraft.
(1B) Any Order in Council under this section may make—

(a) such adaptations or modifications of the provisions concerned, and

(b) such supplementary provisions,

as appear to Her Majesty to be necessary or expedient for the purposes of the Order."

(4) In subsection (2), for "this section" substitute "subsection (1)".").
The noble and learned Lord said: The Government have made provision in Clauses 14 and 15 of the Bill to extend the current powers to require carriers to disclose certain information about passengers carried on board their ships or aircraft. This is achieved by way of amendment to paragraph 27 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act. Amendments Nos. 211 A and 217C amend
1664
Section 10 of the 1971 Act and will ensure that the power to require disclosure of certain passenger information under the new paragraphs 27B and 27C of Schedule 2 should be capable of extension by Order in Council to entry or departure by train or vehicle.
I should make it clear that these amendments are not necessary to require disclosure of information about passengers carried on board through trains and shuttle trains arriving in or departing from the United Kingdom via the Channel Tunnel. Section 11 of the Channel Tunnel Act permits such extension. The circumstances at which these amendments are aimed relate to entry into and departure from the United Kingdom via the land border with the Republic of Ireland. We feel that the new passenger information clauses for this should be capable of being extended in this way in response to future operational needs in exactly the same way as the present powers contained in the 1971 Act are extendable under the current Section 10.
This is the last amendment we shall be debating in full. Before I leave it, perhaps I may extend my thanks and those of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, for the extremely courteous, helpful and effective way in which the Committee stage of the Bill has been effected by those who have spoken regularly in the debates. In particular, perhaps I may mention the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley; the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman; the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby; the noble Lord, Lord Avebury; the noble Earl, Lord Russell; the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon, who has left; the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark; the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, who is not with us; the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, who has also played an important part in our debates; the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, who is not with us; the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, who is not with us; and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, who was here a moment ago. Everybody has had the same aim. Although we have disagreed on certain matters, I do not think that we are singing from different song sheets. I commend the amendments to the Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendments Nos. 212 to 217B:
Page 138, line 36, at end insert—
(". In Schedule 2, in paragraph 16 (detention of persons liable to examination), after sub-paragraph (1), insert—
"(1A) A person whose leave to enter has been suspended under paragraph 2A may be detained under the authority of an immigration officer pending—

(a) completion of his examination under that paragraph; and

(b) a decision on whether to cancel his leave to enter." ").

Page 138, line 40, at end insert—
(". In Schedule 2, in paragraph 21 (temporary admission of persons liable to detention)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (3), after "2" insert "or 2A"; and

(b) in sub-paragraph (4)(a), omit "under paragraph 2 above".").

Page 138, line 40, at end insert—
(". In Schedule 2, in paragraph 22 (temporary release of persons liable to detention), in sub-paragraph (1)(a), after "examination;" insert—

"(aa) a person detained under paragraph 16(1A) above pending completion of his examination or a decision on whether to cancel his leave to enter;".").

Page 138, line 40, at end insert—
(".—(1) In Schedule 2, paragraph 26 (supplementary duties of those connected with ships or aircraft or with ports) is amended as follows.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1), omit "and have not been given leave".
(3) After sub-paragraph (1) insert—
"(1A) Sub-paragraph (1) does not apply in such circumstances, if any, as the Secretary of State may by order prescribe."
(4) After sub-paragraph (3) insert—
"(3A) The power conferred by sub-paragraph (1A) is exercisable by statutory instrument; and any such instrument shall be subject to annulment by a resolution of either House of Parliament." ").
Page 138, line 43, at end insert—
(". In Schedule 2, in paragraph 34 (grant of bail pending removal), in sub-paragraph (1), after "examination" insert ", detained under paragraph 16(1A) above pending completion of his examination or a decision on whether to cancel his leave to enter".").
Page 140, line 27, leave out from beginning to end of line 28 and insert—
(" . Omit section 9 (charges).").
Page 143, line 20, after ("under") insert ("any provision (other than section 49(2)) of").
Page 143, line 29, at end insert—
(" . After section 2 insert—
"Jurisdiction: human rights.
2A.—(1) A person who alleges that an authority has, in taking an appealable decision, acted in breach of his human rights may appeal to the Commission against that decision.
(2) For the purposes of this section, an authority acts in breach of a person's human rights if he acts, or fails to act, in relation to that other person in a way which is made unlawful by section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998.
(3) Subsections (4) and (5) apply if, in any appellate proceedings being heard by the Commission, a question arises as to whether an authority has, in taking a decision which is the subject of the proceedings, acted in breach of the appellant's human rights.
(4) The Commission has jurisdiction to consider the question.
(5) If the Commission decides that the authority concerned acted in breach of the appellant's human rights, the appeal may be allowed on that ground.
(6) "Authority" means—

(a) the Secretary of State;

(b) an immigration officer;

(c) a person responsible for the grant or refusal of entry clearance.

(7) "Appealable decision" means a decision against which a person would be entitled to appeal under Part IV of the 1999 Act or the 1994 Order but for a public interest provision.
(8) "The 1999 Act", "the 1994 Order" and "public interest provision" have the same meaning as in section 2."").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 13, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 14 agreed to.
Schedule 15 [Repeals]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendments Nos. 217C to 220:
Page 147, line 22, column 3, at beginning insert—

("In section 10(1), from "and any such Order" to the end.").

Page 147, line 26, column 3, after ("2,") insert ("in paragraph 21(4)(a) "under paragraph 2 above",").
Page 147, line 26, column 3, after ("2,") insert ("in paragraph 26(1) "and have not been given leave" and").
Page 147, line 35, column 3, leave out from beginning to end of line 36 and insert ("Section 9.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 221 not moved.]
Schedule 15, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Burlison: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes before midnight.

  International Development Issues: Public Understanding
  International Development Issues: Public Understanding
  Shrimp Production, Bangladesh
  Shrimp Production, Bangladesh
  Former Yugoslavia: Investigation of Atrocities
  Former Yugoslavia: Investigation of Atrocities
  Former Yugoslavia: NATO Intentions
  Former Yugoslavia: NATO Intentions
  Military Action: Legality
  Military Action: Legality
  UN Security Council
  UN Security Council
  BBC World Service and Armenia
  BBC World Service and Armenia
  Lithuanian Independence Anniversary
  Lithuanian Independence Anniversary
  Defence Industry Mergers
  Defence Industry Mergers
  Printed Material in Braille: Copyright Law
  Printed Material in Braille: Copyright Law
  Teacher Dismissals
  Teacher Dismissals
  General Pinochet
  General Pinochet
  Human Genetics Commission
  Human Genetics Commission
  Arachnoiditis
  Arachnoiditis
  Complementary Medicine: Information Service
  Complementary Medicine: Information Service
  Action on Addiction
  Action on Addiction
  St. George's Hospital, Tooting: A&E Waiting Times
  St. George's Hospital, Tooting: A&E Waiting Times
  Nos. 10 and 11 Downing Street: Entertainment Expenditure
  Nos. 10 and 11 Downing Street: Entertainment Expenditure
  Questions for Written Answers
  Questions for Written Answers
  Peers' Expenses
  Peers' Expenses
  "Seahenge"
  "Seahenge"
  Local Authority Members: Allowances
  Local Authority Members: Allowances
  Rail Services: Provision and Regulation
  Rail Services: Provision and Regulation
  Access to "Other" Open Countryside: Report
  Access to "Other" Open Countryside: Report
  UK-Faroese Waters: Wildlife Safeguards
  UK-Faroese Waters: Wildlife Safeguards
  Multi-modal Transport Studies
  Multi-modal Transport Studies
  Thameslink 2000 Project
  Thameslink 2000 Project
  M.4 Bus Lane: Consultation
  M.4 Bus Lane: Consultation
  M.4 Elevated Section: Speed Limit
  M.4 Elevated Section: Speed Limit
  London Transport Buses: Fare Evasion
  London Transport Buses: Fare Evasion
  A.12, Witham: Advertisement Hoardings
  A.12, Witham: Advertisement Hoardings
  Stonehenge: A.303 Scheme Review
  Stonehenge: A.303 Scheme Review
  DSS: New Deal Scheme Recruits;
  DSS: New Deal Scheme Recruits;
  Invalid Care Allowance
  Invalid Care Allowance