Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 148, in page 13, line 9, after 'hours', insert

'which shall not be more than 12 hours per day'.

Mr Eric Illsley (Barnsley Central, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 147, in page 13, line 10, after 'manager', insert

'which permission shall not be unreasonably withheld'.

No. 149, in page 13, line 12, at end insert

'if it is reasonable to do so'.

No. 187, in page 13, line 13, after 'centre', insert 'without reasonable excuse'.

No. 188, in page 13, line 32, at end insert

'but only if he is satisfied the breach was without reasonable excuse.'.

Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)

This clause deals with conditions of residence. My lead amendment refers to the condition that might require a person not to be absent from the centre during specified hours, and seeks to limit it to 12 hours per day. It is simply a probing amendment to find out what kind of restraints the Government expect to be placed on those at accommodation centres. The nearest parallel in my life has been my experience in courts when conditions of bail are imposed upon people. Sometimes, the person must not just reside at a certain place, which in legal terms means live and sleep there, but is subject to a curfew from say 9 o'clock at night until 9 o'clock in the morning. The curfew is imposed to prevent the commission of crimes during that period. I know that the Government will not be able to be specific, but I should like to know how much freedom of movement they expect people in accommodation centres to have. Obviously, there is a requirement to reside there, but one hopes that they will have total freedom during the day to come and go as they wish.

Amendment No. 147 says that the permission to be absent should not be unreasonably withheld by the manager. It is similar to the last amendment and merely seeks to find out the sort of regime that might operate at a particular accommodation centre. Amendment No. 149 is also similar and says that a condition may require a person to report to an immigration officer or the Secretary of State only

''if it is reasonable to do so.''

These are simply probing amendments. We are anxious to ensure that the regime in accommodation centres has a light touch. We are trying to ensure that a reasonable test is inserted into the conditions of residence. This is quite important, because the ability of the authorities to require a person to leave an accommodation centre in the event of a breach could bring unforeseen and nasty consequences for the asylum applicant.

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

As the Committee will see, the group of amendments starts with three that were tabled jointly by the hon. Gentleman, his colleagues and us, followed by two more tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam and me. We have made a lot of progress since a year ago. When I was doing this job before the run-up to the last election and going into television and radio studios with Ministers and their Conservative shadows, the entire debate that the Conservatives wanted us to have was about these new centres. They could never quite make up their mind, depending on who was speaking, whether they were detention centres or not. Technically, they were not detention centres and so were a slightly odd creation.

Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)

That was not me, though.

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

I was just about to say that now the more enlightened regime has appeared among those in the Conservative Home Office team, they have got off

these ridiculous head-of-a-pin policies. Had the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues been in their posts before the general election I am sure that we would not have got on to them. We are happily now in more agreed territory. The important point is that the Government are clear that they cannot be detention centres and I am sure that that is correct in international law too. Again, I have not done a pan-European tour of all the variants in the EU. I paid an official visit to Finland a year or so ago and the system there works well. The centres are open, but the residents lose the benefits if they leave them.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

Before the Division, I said that our amendments would limit the conditions that could be imposed under the clause, so that the accommodation centres do not become detention centres in practice. I hope that the Minister will accept that something should be included along the lines of amendment No. 147, which is about ensuring that the process is reasonable. I know that someone can go to court and have a judicial review, but it is better for reasonableness to be written into the Bill. Amendment No. 149 deals with the same point.

Amendments Nos. 187 and 188 relate to subsection (4) on breach of condition and are fairly important. They would ensure that there can be no penalty where there was a reasonable excuse for breach of condition, such as a transport delay. In an inquiry about the breach of condition, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that there was no good reason. It is important that we get these things right, and I look forward to the Minister's response.

Ms Angela Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wallasey, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman sounds as if he has just run up the stairs to finish his comments. Although we understand the points that are being made, we believe that the amendments are unnecessary, as administrative law requires the Secretary of State and the centre manager to act reasonably. That is implicit in the Bill, and is enforceable. There are already sufficient checks and balances in place to render the amendments superfluous.

On residence requirements, we stated in the White Paper that residents would be required to sleep in the centre overnight and be subject to regular reporting. We fully intend that these and any other residence conditions imposed by the clause should be reasonable. On the length of time that people are required to be present in any accommodation centre in any 24-hour period, we envisage that the 12 hours specified in amendment No. 148 would be at the top end of the scale. We said that accommodation centres are not detention centres, nor do we want them to become de facto detention centres. We would not want to put a statutory limit on what is reasonable, as that may vary from circumstance to circumstance. However, I find it difficult to imagine circumstances in which we would require someone to remain in an

accommodation centre for more than 12 hours out of 24.

I have already stressed that people in accommodation centres will not be detained. They will be able to come and go. We want accommodation centres to be self-contained communities where people can live as normally as possible. We would expect people to be able to visit their relations or attend a funeral under the terms of clause 26(3). An advantage of accommodation centres is that there will be staff on site so that such decisions can be taken pragmatically and quickly. The Government have no problem with the spirit of amendment No. 147; we merely consider it to be implicit in the Bill. The same is true of amendment No. 149. It may help the Committee to know that we are planning for reporting on accommodation centre residents to take place on site. I hope that that knowledge will help to allay concerns that reporting requirements could be unreasonable. Distance will not be an issue, nor will inability to afford the bus fare or to find someone to look after children, because reporting can take place on site.

Staff and asylum seekers will know not to arrange appointments or commitments that clash with reporting requirements. If there is an issue with conflicting or clashing appointments, perhaps because someone needs to see a doctor urgently, centre staff will be able to sort that out on the spot. There will not be pedantic, unreasonable or ridiculous requirements.

Under amendment No. 187, we would be able to evict from a centre only when an asylum seeker or his dependant had breached a residence condition without reasonable excuse. Again, I have no difficulty with the spirit of the amendment because that is the approach that we intend to follow. It would be unfair and unreasonable of us to evict someone if they breached their residence conditions through no fault of their own—for example, if they were involved in an accident and could not keep their reporting requirement because they had been taken to hospital, clearly it would be ridiculous and unreasonable to say that that was a breach and we have no intention of doing so. It may be appropriate to require someone to leave a centre if they persistently failed to report, were away overnight without informing us, or acted violently towards another resident, but we would be minded to take a less strict approach with more minor infringements of house rules.

Amendment No. 188 is also unnecessary because it is incumbent on the Secretary of State to consider reasonable excuse when deciding whether to withdraw support under clause 26. There is no need to specify in clause 26(8) that the Secretary of State may take into account only the fact that a person has breached the residence conditions without reasonable excuse because that already exists.

In the light of those assurances, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

I am certainly reassured by the Minister. We shall take advice on the implications of what she said, but I hope that she is right and that further reassurances are not required. There are legal remedies outwith the Act that can be exercised.

Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)

In view of what the Minister said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Ms Rosie Winterton (Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department; Doncaster Central, Labour)

I beg to move amendment No. 110, in page 13, line 29, leave out 'or 95' and insert ', 95 or 98'.

Mr Eric Illsley (Barnsley Central, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 124.

Ms Rosie Winterton (Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department; Doncaster Central, Labour)

Amendment No. 110 ensures that clause 26(8) refers to all the powers under which asylum support may be provided, and corrects a small omission in the Bill. Subsection (8) already refers to support provided under clauses 15 and 24 and section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. For completeness, this minor amendment makes it explicit that clause 26(8) also applies to section 98 of the 1999 Act. Amendment 124 does the equivalent to clause 39.

Section 98 of the 1999 Act is used to provide temporary support and emergency accommodation while NASS is considering whether someone is destitute and entitled to asylum support under section 95 of the 1999 Act. Amendment No. 110 is necessary to clarify that, when deciding whether to provide support or assistance under section 98 of the 1999 Act, the Secretary of State may take into account the fact that the person or his dependant has breached a condition of support under the clause. If someone has been supported in an accommodation centre and has either breached a condition of support and has been required to leave the centre or has left of his own volition but subsequently re-presents himself for support, the Secretary of State may take account of his previous behaviour in deciding whether to reinstate support. The amendment and the clause are intended to prevent abuse of the asylum support system because asylum seekers might seek to thwart dispersal to an accommodation centre by leaving the centre and re-presenting themselves at emergency accommodation, perhaps in London, in the hope that they might be permitted to stay there or will be allocated to NASS accommodation, which they might perceive to be preferable.

As many hon. Members will know, moving people out of emergency accommodation in London was a particular problem in the early days of the National Asylum Support Service. Clause 26(8), as amended, will enable the Secretary of State to say, ''You have been offered support in an accommodation centre. You have decided to leave that centre. You have breached residence conditions or you have absconded. Therefore I have no obligation to provide you with support in another place.''

That principle is backed up by clause 39. Government amendment No. 124 does for clause 39(2) what Government amendment No. 110 does for clause 26. Clause 39 will give the Secretary of State

discretion on the legislation—part VI of the 1999 Act or the Bill—under which he chooses to support an applicant, which will reinforce the policy of support. Government amendment No. 124 makes it clear that the Secretary of State may refuse to provide support under section 98 of the 1999 Act on the basis that support is already being provided or offered under clause 15, clause 22 or section 95 of the 1999 Act.

The Government amendments also provide for the reverse case. The Secretary of State may refuse to provide support under clause 15, clause 22 or section 95 of the 1999 Act if support is being offered under section 98. Government amendment No. 124 means that if an applicant is offered temporary support in an accommodation centre under clause 22 while the Secretary of State considers whether they are entitled to support under section 15 or section 95, they would have to take that support. They could not insist on receiving temporary support under section 98 emergency accommodation.

As with Government amendment No. 110, the situation that is most likely to arise would be a person deciding to leave an accommodation centre of their own volition and re-presenting themselves for section 98 emergency accommodation in London because they perceive that that is preferable. Amendment No. 124 enables the Secretary of State to refuse to support them in those circumstances. I hope that that explains the relatively minor Government amendments.

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

I have just a couple of short observations and a question for the Minister.

First, I take my share of responsibility for not flagging this issue up at the beginning of the process. The Minister's perfectly proper retelling of the advice that Ministers have received about the details of the Bill reminds me that, when we consider legislation such as this, it is important that we see a draft Bill and use Special Standing Committee procedure to allow us to take advice on the more technical matters on which, to be honest, we are not expert. I hope that we do that for the rest of this Session and in the next Session. [Interruption.] Everyone looks at their pager to be told that a vote is coming up in 15 minutes or that the vote is off. A pager vibration with nothing worth reading creates unfulfilled expectations.

There should be a system that provides ministerial and civil service increments or reductions in salary depending on the number of amendments introduced by the Government during the passage of Bills.

Mr Mike Gapes (Ilford South, Labour/Co-operative)

Does that apply to the Opposition as well?

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

Absolutely not, but it should apply to Government. Bills are the Government's babies, and if they cannot produce them in a slightly more planned manner, there is something wrong with the conception process at the heart of Government. I shall stop the analogy there.

There is a real issue, and we have not done too badly so far, although the big blast is to come. Ministers will appreciate that it is helpful to have explanatory notes and notes on clauses when Government amendments or new clauses are tabled

late. Can we have them for next week's amendments? It would make life much easier, and it saves Ministers and us time. It also prevents people from tabling amendments that would not be necessary if the full import of the Bill were understood.

Somebody could be allocated to an accommodation centre because in the initial interview they said that they did not have anywhere to stay, but later someone could come up with an offer for them to stay with family friends or a person nearby, thereby releasing an accommodation centre place. I wonder whether it would be possible under the provisions for people to say, ''Thank you very much. I'd like to stay with my cousin who I've discovered is only 50 miles down the road.'' Can they do that without prejudicing their other interests while they are having their applications considered?

Ms Rosie Winterton (Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department; Doncaster Central, Labour)

Yes. The accommodation is for people considered to be destitute, so the situation would change.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 124, in page 13, line 29, leave out 'or 95' and insert ', 95 or 98'—[Ms Winterton.]

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 189, in page 13, line 32, at end insert—

'(8A) A resident shall not be deemed to have breached a condition imposed under this section unless a written warning has been issued in relation to a previous relevant and separate incident.'.

Mr Eric Illsley (Barnsley Central, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 150, in page 13, line 34, at end add—

'(10) A person who is given notice under subsections (4) (5) or (6) may appeal against that decision.'.

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

The lead amendment is ours, and the other is a joint Liberal Democrat and Conservative amendment.

On the day that England selected its world cup squad—we hope that it does better than it has done in recent years, and wins—the lead amendment provides football-type procedures, which are based on good practice, to deal with people who breach their conditions. Football has yellow and red cards, which is not accidental. It is thought that first warnings should not result in a person being taken off the pitch unless the most serious of offences has taken place. We would like a yellow and red card system for breaches of conditions. In the league of amendments, No. 189 has two or three stars, but certainly not five stars. However, it has more than one star, which the previous amendments would have been given. We want such a system so that a resident

''shall not be deemed to have breached a condition imposed under this section unless a written warning has been issued in relation to a previous relevant and separate incident.''

We could have a three-phase operation: a verbal warning, a written warning and a recorded breach.

However reasonable people might be, less serious offences should not trigger what is technically a breach. Amendment No. 150 would require that a person who is given a notice stating that they have breached conditions under subsections (4), (5) or (6)

has the right to appeal. There should be a provision for appeal because there may have been misunderstandings, or facts may have been incorrectly communicated.

Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)

My amendment merely flags up the issue of appeal. I look forward to the Minister's response.

Ms Angela Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wallasey, Labour)

We heard an interesting football analogy from the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. However, a referee can use a red card straight away depending on the seriousness of the offence. He does not always have to issue written warning to the Vinny Joneses of this world. We intend something similar here. There may be an argument for written warnings for more minor offences, but we want to retain the right to punish somebody for breach, if it is sufficiently serious, whether it is a first offence or not. I am thinking of violence towards other inmates or other such behaviour.

With that caveat, we accept that the enforcement of the house rules and discipline in accommodation centres must be reasonable, and it will be. All asylum seekers must be clear that if they breach their conditions of residence, their support could be withdrawn, if it was reasonable to do so. The reasonableness revolves around the seriousness of the breach. We intend to make the house rules clear to an asylum seeker arriving in an accommodation centre and to explain the consequences of a breach openly at the beginning, so that nobody can claim that they did not know what the rules were before they breached them, but we do not want excessive reactions to more minor breaches. I hope that we can agree that red cards should be available immediately in the case of a serious breach.

Amendment No. 150 is unnecessary, although I understand the Opposition's concern to ensure that asylum seekers have a right of appeal against any decision to withdraw support by being required to leave a centre. Clause 41, which inserts a new section 103 into the 1999 Act, gives a right of appeal to the asylum support adjudicator against any decision to stop providing support under clause 15 or section 95 of the 1999 Act, or both. There are exceptions. If a person ceases to be an asylum seeker or the dependant of an asylum seeker, support may be withdrawn without a right of appeal, but for behavioural breaches that right is contained in clause 41.

I hope that, with that reassurance, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

I was not suggesting that we should not have a red card system. I understand that there must be a sanction and that people need to know there is one. I shall reflect on what the Minister has said. She spotted a part of the appeal process that I concede I had not spotted before. That is what comes of having more influential friends to give advice on such matters than I have. However, we are grateful for what she said and will reflect on it. For the time being, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 26, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill