Clause 14 - Establishment of centres
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill
11:30 am
Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark and Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)
I, too, shall speak to amendments Nos. 126 and 127, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) and I are co-signatories. Amendment No. 168 stands in our names alone. We do not support the Conservatives' amendments Nos. 125 or 128. I will not add to the general points made by the hon. Member for Woking on amendments Nos. 126 and 127. It is more important to think of locations that are
''suitable to the cultural and other needs of those to be accommodated''
—to use the words in amendment No. 126—than to make a clinical distinction between what is urban, suburban and rural. As my hon. Friend said, a perfectly good site might technically be in a rural area, but lie within a two-stop bus ride from a city with a multi-ethnic, multiracial community. Proximity, accessibility and links to an appropriate community are important. As the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North said, asylum seekers who have recently arrived in this country are placed predominantly in urban communities, mainly in London but not always, whether they are being dispersed or have come from elsewhere. I suspect that not one village in England or Wales has significant numbers--say, 25 per cent.--of asylum seekers or recent immigrants, let alone more. Towns and other larger conglomerations are the more frequent locations.
The numbers will be more balanced if the accommodation centre is on the edge of a town or city. By definition, the number of people in such a centre is small compared with that in a town or city. It would help those who read the record of our debates if the Minister were to mention the eight sites in her concluding remarks. The sites have been publicised, but have not been discussed so far in the debate. Whatever the locations, how do the Government intend to ensure that accommodation centres are safe and that the people in them are protected, which is what the Churches Commission for Racial Justice supports, as the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham said? People should feel secure, wherever they are.
I shall be blunt: racists up and down the land are willing to act on their racism individually or in groups. We must therefore ensure that the debate is balanced in communities where accommodation centres are sited. Racists are able to put their arguments well in newspapers and on the radio, and it is important that there should be no NIMBYish opposition to foreigners, strangers and others whom they believe will not stay long but are unacceptable. I am not suggesting that the Minister or the Government are unaware of that.
Statutory authorities should be formally consulted on the processes of democracy. That is why amendment No. 127 is reasonable. It is no good for the Government to plant such centres on areas without formally asking for and taking into account the views of the local authority, local quasi-democratic authorities, the police, the health authority and non-governmental organisations with experience. If such bodies are consulted, a public inquiry would be unnecessary, if not unhelpful. Such an inquiry would cause delay and increase local tension.
Inquiries about electoral boundaries are the same: no one is allowed to say that they object to a proposed boundary because it disadvantages them, so they invent six other reasons to do with history, geography and everything else. People may not be prepared to say that they do not want black or Asian people or people from Kosovo living near them, so they will invent six other reasons and spin out the debate at great expense
and to no great community advantage. If we are talking about a few centres around the country, I am happy that the debate will be public as long as the Government consult formally and properly, publish the responses and take them into account. If the parish, town, district or county council or unitary authority, together with the police and health authorities, cannot adequately represent the views of the local community, I do not know who can.
My hon. Friend and I do not support amendment No. 125 because we agree that one cannot ring fence an urban area and say that nothing outside it--not even two inches--would be an appropriate location.
Amendment No. 168 is an important probing amendment, and the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham referred to its provisions. It proposes that no accommodation centre should be established unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that it provides adequate accommodation and facilities, and unless proper consultation has taken place. It is easy to envisage the centres as institutional, dormitory places like army camps. That is a danger, and we must afford individuals and families the dignity they need, even in the trials. Eight males between 18 and 30 may arrive from Albania or 12 from Afghanistan, and they may be happy to share accommodation. However, it would not be appropriate for families with children to share accommodation and have to battle to get to the shower or to the washing or baby-changing facilities. We must provide adequate accommodation that we would expect any other family in a community to be provided.
My hon. Friend and I have compared notes on the Sheffield and London experience. Institutional accommodation is much more likely to induce resistance, objection and a potentially disorderly community. I have not visited Yarl's Wood and do not know the circumstances that led up to the difficulties there, but putting large numbers of people together in an institutional environment allows discontent to fester. In respect of management and decency, I hope that the Minister can assure the Committee about the provisions in amendment No. 168, particularly paragraph (3)(b), which concerns the provision of separate accommodation for each household or person.