Clause 25 - Facilities
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill
4:15 pm
Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)
That is helpful. The Committee and others outside will want to know what the Minister undoubtedly knows: which sites will the Government nominate as sites for which they wish to apply for planning? Can she specifically answer that during the debate?
Amendment No. 142 is the important amendment, but I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 144, 143 and 145 as well. The clause reads:
''The Secretary of State may arrange for the following to be provided to a resident''.
Amendment No. 142 provides that the Government ''shall'' instead of ''may''.
People in the accommodation centres will often come from a difficult and vulnerable background. Many will have undertaken long and hazardous journeys. They will come to centres where they are likely to live, sometimes with their families, for a period which, according to the Minister, could be four months. The first few days and the first two or three weeks of an asylum applicant's life in this country are terribly important, and it is vital that the fullest possible range of services is provided to the applicant and his or her family at the earliest opportunity. While we welcome a number of the services proposed, we strongly believe that it should be a duty on the Secretary of State to arrange for them to be provided. It should not simply be a possibility—something that the Secretary of State may do—because that gives the Secretary of State freedom to provide some services in one accommodation centre and others or fewer in another. My hon. Friends and I believe that there is a need to provide the services, and the Bill would be much better phrased if it placed a duty on the Secretary of State. As the Minister will say, in due course, that services will be provided, why does the Bill not say that they will be provided, rather than
''The Secretary of State may arrange''?
If the Minister has doubts about whether they will be provided, she should say so. However, if she is in no doubt about their provision, the Bill should say that the Secretary of State shall arrange for them to be provided.
What is not included in the list that should be there? First and most important, there should be on-site, independent legal advice and representation, funded by the Legal Services Commission or by the Secretary of State. I have been to Oakington, as have some of my colleagues. The Immigration Advisory Service offers full legal representation on that site. The Refugee Council or the Refugee Legal Centre—forgive me, I know which it is but it has escaped my mind—is also there in great number. I believe that there are 54 caseworkers from the Immigration Advisory Service.
What happens at Oakington? Admittedly, there are different types of cases, because some are said to be easier to determine. However, the reality is that as
soon as someone arrives, they receive legal advice on the site. That must apply to accommodation centres as well. Goodness knows, every non-governmental organisation involved in asylum or immigration work and everyone that is interested in the subject agrees that access to legal advice at the earliest possible stage is absolutely vital. We will come on to that when we discuss induction centres.
Clearly, there should be a duty on the Home Secretary to provide legal advice and representation on site—not somewhere else—for asylum seekers. Why? According to the Government, the purpose of an accommodation centre is to have a smooth, speedy, satisfactory, humane and efficient resolution of an asylum application. Therefore, it must be right to offer on-the-spot legal advice as part of the operation.
I have seen it written down in Home Office documents and I have heard the Home Secretary and the Minister say that the Government intend to provide legal advice and assistance at or sufficiently near accommodation centres. If that is the case, why are they omitted from the Bill? The Bill says:
''The Secretary of State may arrange for the following'',
and lists food, money, assistance with transport, education and training, medical facilities, facilities for religious observance and
''anything which the Secretary of State thinks ought to be provided for a person because of his exceptional circumstances.''
Why are the classically important legal advice and assistance not included? They should be.
I hope that the Minister will agree to the amendment. Many outside the House support it, and it is wholly supported by my hon. Friends and I, and, I believe, by the Liberal Democrats and many Labour Back Benchers who know the importance of immediate legal advice and agree that its presence on site at an accommodation centre is critical. If an accommodation centre is located in a rural location, let us not be told that legal advice is available miles away. Let us not be told that transportation facilities are not too bad if an asylum seeker wishes to travel for an hour or two to get advice. Let us not be told that there are local lawyers prepared to give advice if someone is seeking it. Let us be told that the Government will offer legal advice on site.