Ms Karen Buck (Regent's Park & Kensington North, Labour)

I beg to move amendment No. 103, in page 11, line 5, at end add—

'(c) is over 18 years of age'.

The amendment would exclude children under 18 and their families from accommodation centres and thus ensure that the children would retain the right to be educated in mainstream schools. The provision of other services is relevant to the amendment, but education is central. The Bill requires children who are placed in accommodation centres to be educated there, but it is appropriate to ensure their right to be educated in mainstream education by requiring them to be provided for within the dispersal system and outwith the accommodation centres.

Important issues of principle are involved. The case has been made powerfully and eloquently by some of the children's organisations that the children of asylum seekers should be treated as children first and asylum seekers second. Although I strongly believe in that principle, I do not want to address that issue now because we will return to it later in the Bill. Instead, I shall explore the practicalities and try to persuade Ministers to think again about the possibility of providing for children of asylum seekers in mainstream schools.

I have three points, the first of which is that we should focus on numbers. In that respect, the debate has become rather clouded in the past few weeks. We must think about whether it is right for children to be educated in accommodation centres, or whether they would benefit from being educated in mainstream schools. We must consider whether children being educated alongside the children of asylum seekers are damaged by that experience.

Mr Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North & Leith, Labour/Co-operative)

Does my hon. Friend accept that the amendment as drafted allows no flexibility in how the children of asylum seekers are educated or supported? It would be a different situation if the location of an accommodation centre was such that it would be difficult for a local authority to provide education or other facilities, or if only two or three children required such services. Would not there be merit in allowing some flexibility in the system, so that an authority could provide such facilities if it were able to do so?

Ms Karen Buck (Regent's Park & Kensington North, Labour)

I am always open to a case for flexibility being made, but we should start with the onus being

on the Government to ensure that education is in mainstream schools, with specific exceptions.

The context of the amendment is important. A couple of weeks ago, the debate took off on the much broader question of how local services—not only schools, but health and social services—deal with a significant and sometimes rapidly increasing number of people, not only children and families, whose first language is often not English and who may have associated problems of trauma and dislocation. I have no difficulty entering into that debate. As a Londoner and a London MP, I have argued for the past five years that London schools that have taken many children of asylum seekers have needs and face pressures, and require more support.

This city has already taken on the responsibility and absorbed the overwhelming majority of Britain's asylum seekers and refugees. It is therefore right to consider the context of their needs. It is estimated that some 80,000 asylum-seeking children attend mainstream schools, two thirds of which are in London. There are schools in which half of all pupils are from asylum-seeking and refugee communities. It is a tribute to those schools and their staff that they do as well as they do, and that so many are high achieving and improving.

As well as political experience, I speak from personal experience. I do not often do so, but it is important in this instance. I have a child who attends an inner-city state primary school in London in which more than half the children are from asylum-seeking and refugee communities. Sometimes the allegation is made that those of us who speak on the subject and present the case that I am presenting do so from the comfort of communities outside those that are under pressure, or have changed, or have large migrant, asylum-seeking or refugee populations. As a parent as well as a politician, I say with passion that it is right and proper to strike a balance.

I would like more schools and services with a mixed intake. It is right for them and right for the communities that have so far taken the larger share of asylum seekers and refugees. That is why I support the principle of dispersal, although my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) and I recall making the case before the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 was passed that we were going to have to do much more to make dispersal work.

We will not add significantly to the child population already in the dispersed communities if we exclude children under 18 from accommodation centres. The debate should therefore not be confused with arguments about pressure on services in London and other areas, or about the mainstream of dispersal. It would be useful if the Minister could provide more guidance on the numbers.

I will assume for now that the accommodation centres will take approximately 750 people—we debated that before, although the number may be too large. Currently, nine out of 10 asylum seekers are adults, and only a tiny minority of all asylum seekers are unaccompanied children or families with dependent children. We may therefore assume that

among 750 people at an accommodation centre, there may be 40 couples and some unaccompanied children. There could be 150 children under 18, including babes in arms, children who would otherwise attend nursery, primary or secondary school, and young people who would otherwise attend sixth form or college.

Given that age range, it does not seem unreasonable to say that, most of the time, an accommodation centre could place those children in surrounding schools. Alternatively, for argument's sake, those who would otherwise be in accommodation centres but who could be dispersed in the community in the same area would not add significantly to the numbers in local schools. The experience of London and other centres of dispersal suggests that it would not necessarily be difficult to accommodate that number of children.

It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us how she envisages the numbers working out, so that we can see whether we are talking about such large numbers of children that it would be completely unrealistic to expect an education authority to provide places for them. Given the statistical trends relating to asylum seekers, it is hard to see how that case could be made.

My second question is whether the children of asylum seekers benefit from education in mainstream schools and would therefore be better served by being provided for outside accommodation centres. It has been argued that the quality of education and other services provided in accommodation centres could be high, and I do not question that: it is perfectly possible that fine doctors and teachers and other service providers could be employed in accommodation centres. I do not doubt for a second that the quality of literacy or numeracy provision within such centres could be high. My point, which has been made very strongly during the last couple of weeks by educationists, teachers and others who have an interest in the subject, is that literacy and numeracy are only a small part of education.

The socialisation, confidence building and engagement that would come from being located in a community setting rather than an accommodation centre are critical. That has been borne out by research. The Economic and Social Research Council confirmed in 2000 that school plays a vital part in the lives of asylum seekers and refugees. It said that the

''quality of the first few months is critical.''

I do not believe that we will get most children through accommodation centres in six weeks. I would love to believe it. In some cases we will do so, but to be realistic, and in view of the importance of getting not merely fast but accurate decisions, it is more likely that young people and children will remain in accommodation centres for a number of months. Those first few months are of critical importance to those children. On current trends, roughly one in three will be permitted to remain in this country and will go on to settle in permanent accommodation, but three months is a long time for those children. If we are to give them the opportunity of a decent start to life, we

must get the provision of services, especially schooling, right from the start. All the advice and evidence from those involved in education, as well as my own feelings and experiences, tell me that education is best provided in mainstream schooling.

The head teacher of Star primary was quoted in the Evening Standard last week praising the motivation of the youngsters who arrive with a burning desire to make a success of their new home, adding that

''They learn much faster surrounded by the local environment in classes with local children.''

Of course such children require additional support and tuition—we have argued that at length—but they learn best by interacting with other children. If there is any evidence that the Government can claim in support of their case that children would learn better in those critical first months if they were separated from those in mainstream education, let us have that evidence on the table and debate it.

My third question is whether other children or students suffer as a consequence of mixing with the children of asylum seekers. A mixed intake is crucial, but it is not ideal if asylum-seeking or refugee children constitute 60, 70 or 80 per cent. of a school's intake. Evidence from Ofsted and my own experience as a parent suggests that that does not make a school a failure, but it is not ideal. We want those children to be distributed across educational institutions, where they, too, can develop best.

There is no doubt that, even in the concentrations that we experience in the inner city, the children of asylum seekers and refugees perform exceptionally well. I hope that the Minister will endorse at least that point. They are highly aspirational and motivated, and achieve remarkable results. It is critical that we send that message out into London, to the dispersed communities, and to the places where accommodation centres will be sited, whether or not there will be young people in them.

Let me highlight two examples from my casework that illustrate my point. The first is that of a 15-year-old boy who arrived here from Eritrea in 1999 with no English. In his letter to me, which is supported by documentary evidence, he says:

''I was sent to Holland Park School to do an English Course . . . because of my age, I have been a quick learner and now speak English fluently''—

so fluently that he is now on the gifted and talented register. He continues:

''I have absorbed the British way of life and now consider myself a member of this great society . . . I achieved four grade As in my As levels in Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics and Arabic . . . I am expected to achieve 5 grade A's next year, with further mathematics''.

Unfortunately, that lad has not yet had a decision on his case, but it bears out my point.

The other example is that of a young woman who arrived here from Bosnia aged 15, unaccompanied and speaking no English. By the time she reached the age of 21, last year, she had got a first-class degree and was the only UK graduate recruited by Lehman Brothers in the United States. Unfortunately, she could not go

for a year because she had no travel documents but, again, those are practical problems.

More broadly, key stage 2 results in London, where 68 per cent. of asylum-seeking children are provided for, improved faster than the national average, as did the performance of London children at GCSE level. Earlier this year, the Osmani primary school in Tower Hamlets was cited as the most improved primary school in the UK. The Ofsted and Audit Commission report on local authority support for schools in inner London stated:

''The inner-London LEAs have access to a . . . wide range of cultural facilities and the diversity of communities they serve is a real strength''.

Mr David Lammy (Tottenham, Labour)

I endorse much that my hon. Friend has said. It is certainly my experience in Tottenham that the children of asylum seekers and refugees respond well in our schools and that many do extremely well. Indeed, an exhibition currently in the House shows that children can come from far afield and do very well in the British system.

Does my hon. Friend accept, however, that some children from some communities are struggling? That may be because of the experiences of the countries from which they have arrived. From my experience in Tottenham, I think of the Kurdish community from Turkey and the representations that Kurdish parents have made to me about how that group is struggling in some of our schools. I also think of Somalian children: a young Somalian child to whom I spoke recently had trouble in our school system and ended up in Feltham young offenders institution. Children who have had traumatic experiences might actually benefit from specialist provision and concentrated help when they arrive in the country, so that they can then enter the mainstream.

Ms Karen Buck (Regent's Park & Kensington North, Labour)

I am absolutely persuaded by extensive personal experience that a significant minority of asylum seekers and asylum-seeking children are disadvantaged by their experiences and what they have witnessed. I am thinking of children who have seen their parents tortured or killed, and children who have been in war zones or are traumatised and dislocated. It is also true that the children of certain asylum-seeking communities from war zones do not have a tradition of educational achievement. However, I do not substitute the argument that asylum-seeking children are a drain on our schools and communities for the equally glib and banal argument that all such children are on the gifted and talented register. It would be facile so to do.

The point is that all those children require the level of support that is appropriate to their needs, and that those children who require counselling and support will certainly do so for a great deal longer than the three, four or six months that they will spend in an accommodation centre or otherwise. That support will have to be continuing.

Mr Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow, Labour)

If the implication of the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) was that children with particular difficulties should be the ones who go into accommodation centres, will my hon. Friend the

Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) speculate on the ability of the National Asylum Support Service to select those children?

Ms Karen Buck (Regent's Park & Kensington North, Labour)

I was drifting towards that conclusion. My hon. Friend the Minister might respond to that point. It is hard for us to know now what the selection process will be and the criteria that will be used to determine who goes into accommodation centres, and who remains in the dispersal system, going through NASS, which will be the vast majority of families with children and unaccompanied children. It is therefore difficult to draw a conclusion. If Ministers are thinking about that already, it would be helpful if they shared their thinking with us.

Currently, we have no reason to assume that the selection will be anything other than entirely arbitrary. Therefore the children who require special needs provision, to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow has referred, could be placed either in an accommodation centre or in the dispersal system. Either way, they need to be provided for.

Mr David Lammy (Tottenham, Labour)

I am not a parent and I accept that many of my hon. Friends are, but I was only suggesting that one of the best experiences in our job is going into local schools and recognising how special all the children are, whatever their background.

I understood my hon. Friend's point that a significant number of the children will need extra support because of what they have seen and where they have come from. The state provides extra support for children who are school-phobic, those who have been bullied so much that they do not want to go to school, and those who play truant. Such children may be educated in pupil referral units, often outside mainstream education. In the same vein, does my hon. Friend accept that there is a case for concentrating efforts on the children of asylum seekers as they arrive in the country? I refer to specialist English provision and specialist educationists who understand those children's psychological and other needs. That is all I was saying—I did not mean to go as far as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow suggests.

Ms Karen Buck (Regent's Park & Kensington North, Labour)

I understand that, but whether children spend a short time in an accommodation centre before going into mainstream education, or whether they go directly into mainstream education through NASS, we have got to get the level of support right. That includes the quality of support that we provide to teachers in the classroom. My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham has made an important point about bullying, and I think that the ESRC research talked about the risk of bullying.

There is a great deal to get right, and we have not got it right in London: despite more than a decade of intensive experience, we certainly have not cracked the problem or found all the answers. Still less have we cracked it in schools in dispersal areas, which are still coming to terms with the numbers seen in the past couple of years. There is a huge job to do.

Two points remain. First, those initial few months after arrival are crucial. The school experience—being part of a community of children—plays a vital psychological role in the process of adjustment for

under-18s. That will be especially important for the one in three children who, on current trends, are likely to remain. Secondly, we have to provide support for both traumatised children and those who have to come to terms with dislocation. We have got to get that right in the nine out of 10 places that are outside accommodation centres, so we might as well get it right for everyone from stage one, and do so in mainstream education.

Mr David Lammy (Tottenham, Labour)

On that point, what if there is a crisis somewhere in the world in the next few months? It might be bigger than the current crisis in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, or it could be in one of the further reaches of eastern Europe. Let us assume that Britain goes to the aid of that country in some same shape or form, perhaps through the European Union or the United Nations. If a group, or community, as my hon. Friend rightly describes it, of children and families from that country arrives here, does she not accept that it would be best to concentrate efforts and keep them together, with specialist provision, than to split them up across London and the rest of the United Kingdom?

Ms Karen Buck (Regent's Park & Kensington North, Labour)

I see what my hon. Friend is getting at, but I am not sure that the accommodation centres point is all that germane. We will have to cross that river anyway. Let us say that 5,000 or 3,000 people arrived. Whether they spend three or five months in an accommodation centre, that hurdle has to be jumped. We have to provide mainstream services for those whom we accept anyway. By excluding children from mainstream education in those first few months, we merely delay that process. Accommodation centres are not relevant, because, as planned, they will provide for only a tiny minority of people. I am not convinced that that argument undermines my case that all children should, as a matter of principle and practicality, start by being educated in mainstream schools.

We should not be diverted from this challenge. We must ensure that good practice, resources and support for those services are put in place in the communities that will receive dispersed asylum seekers and in London, where we have not got everything right by any means. We should not be distracted into thinking that we need to set up a parallel set of services, which—even if it is as good as has been claimed—is likely to be infinitely more expensive than taking good practice and support from mainstream service delivery.

My last point is brief. If we are to overcome the fear of the unknown, which is a principal driver of anxiety in communities that are accommodating asylum seekers for the first time, and which often accompanies the arrival of strangers, schools are the best place to start. If we are to change the culture of fear and anxiety, letting our children mix from the beginning in those communities that are new to a more multicultural and mixed society is the right way to do it. Children are capable of leading the way. They are not innately anxious about people who speak different languages, are of a different colour and have different experiences. We should build on that and allow our

children to show our communities the way to ensure that asylum seekers become properly integrated.

I would welcome assurances from the Minister, as I have no intention of pressing the amendment to a vote. No doubt we shall return to these issues when we debate education issues later in the Bill. However, I would appreciate responses to my questions. Will the Minister share her thinking about the criteria used in the selection process? We must have an informed debate about which children should be based in accommodation centres and how to make the best provision for them. Finally, I affirm that children under 18 should be excluded from accommodation centres.

Mr Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow, Labour)

I shall be brief, because my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North has already made a powerful case for the amendment. I shall add just a few points.

I am worried that if we create accommodation centres that provide education services, we will be setting up an alternative to an existing service. I had hoped that after the experience of the first couple of years of NASS, when vouchers were used as an alternative social security system, we would be wary of going down that road. Medical and other services will certainly be provided in accommodation centres, but we would not suggest that people should be excluded from access to the national health service.

It is a matter of principle whether any child should be excluded from mainstream education. Like my hon. Friend, I represent a constituency that has for several years taken significant numbers of asylum seekers and refugee children. I have seen what happens when those children are admitted to schools. There is no doubt that problems and pressures are created when significant numbers of children arrive at intervals during the year rather than all at the beginning. Schools have to cope with different languages. Finance, too, can be a problem when children enter during the school year; it has to be dealt with at the end of the year, rather late.

The pressures and problems cannot be denied. I can think of schools in my constituency that have spare places. As well as receiving many asylum-seeker children, they often have to accept children who have been excluded from other schools, which does not make for an easy life. However, when I talk to teachers and staff in such schools, they often express a positive view and recognise the gains as well. As my hon. Friend said, asylum-seeker children are often highly motivated.

I was absent from Committee this morning because of the Queen's first visit to a London constituency as part of the jubilee celebrations. The Queen gave awards to several children, one of whom arrived in this country two and a half years ago as a refugee from Kosovo. He spoke no English, yet he was picked out by the school as an outstanding pupil who exemplified what was good in the borough and the constituency.

As I have mentioned before, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes)

and I visited Kosovo and met families who had lived in the UK through the humanitarian evacuation programme and had returned to their home country. One of the main purposes of our visit was to see how they were getting on. I remember that members of one family had been killed in Kosovo while their children were at school in Leeds. Among other things, they showed us photographs of the school and cards that the other children had written to them when they returned to Kosovo. It was obvious from talking to the children, seeing their souvenirs and hearing about the relationships they had made in the school, that the asylum-seeker children and the rest of the children in the school had gained from being together and making relationships, even if it was only for a year or so.

Schools that receive significant, regular numbers of asylum-seeker children build up a degree of expertise. Many London schools have great expertise in dealing with those children. What worries me about the suggestion that asylum-seeker children should be educated in the accommodation centres is that they will be separated from other children and the mix will be lost. As my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North said, education is not only about learning a language, or being taught how to do arithmetic; a vital part of education is about relationships and mixing with other children.

The argument about isolation and about people becoming institutionalised is my main general concern about large accommodation centres outside urban areas, but it is especially relevant to children.

Mr David Lammy (Tottenham, Labour)

As a young Member of Parliament, I rely on my hon. Friend, who is chairman of the all-party group on refugees, for advice on these matters. He mentioned the young Kosovan child who received a award from the Queen this morning. Does he accept that if the proposal as drafted works, and we hope that it will, such a child may—may is the important, operative word—have been in the accommodation centre for six months, after which period he will move into the system? He may then turn up at the school to which my hon. Friend referred and, I hope, receive his award. There is no bar on the real, positive social mix that we all applaud.

Mr Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow, Labour)

Of course there is no bar, but I am not sure what is supposed to be gained by the six-month period. Let us take learning a language. Yes, language classes can be provided, but anyone who has tried to learn another language knows that it does not matter how many classes one goes to; one starts to feel comfortable with a language only when one uses it, or has to use it, to communicate with other people. Language skills develop much more quickly in those circumstances. In that respect, there is something to gain from immediate mixing.

I worry about the social effects of keeping children separate for six months. That is a long time in a child's life and it may take some time to get over the experience. One reason why we were pushed to table the amendment relates to the decision that accommodation centres will, in the main, be large and outside urban and semi-urban areas. Small, local, isolated schools will find it difficult to take the numbers involved, which would be easier to cope

with in a larger town or city. That contradicts the very idea of refugee integration on which we have been trying to make progress.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham asked what would happen if there was a crisis in the world and significant numbers of families and children arrived simultaneously. If that happened, it is highly unlikely that they would go into accommodation centres, unless we are to leave centres standing with lots of empty places. We would act as we did with the humanitarian evacuation programme from Kosovo, when facilities were found in towns such as Leeds and Glasgow to accommodate 40 or 50 families together, and the children then went to local schools. That is what we would do if a humanitarian crisis resulted in significant numbers of people arriving in this country at the same time.

We might be able to deal with the question of education in other ways. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) asked for a bit more flexibility. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North, I am perfectly happy to consider being flexible, but the Bill does not build in flexibility. That is the purpose of the amendment. We want some certainty, but we should not isolate all the children who end up in accommodation centres.

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

I shall be very brief, because we may reach clause 30.

I do not start from the same point as the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North, although the arguments are extremely persuasive and were well put by her. She spoke not only from constituency experiences similar to some of us, but, entirely appropriately, from personal experience in which she was honourable enough to make for herself the choices that public policy makers do not always make for others.

Earlier, I forgot the title and author of a book. I have now remembered it; it is called ''The Other Side of Truth''. It received a children's book prize of the year last year, and I recommend it to hon. Members. It was written by the South African journalist and novelist, Beverley Naidoo, and tells in fictional form a true story about two young Nigerian children who fled during the military regime and came to south London. In reality they came to Southwark, although the story does not make that especially clear.

Apart from the awfulness of seeing their mother killed and having to leave Nigeria in a hurry, the kernel of the story was that they ended being taken in by social services. The member of family who was supposed to meet them did not meet them, so they were then fostered and went to a local school. The beginning of their experiences in a pretty rough south London comprehensive was not pleasant. Other asylum seeker children were there, but as we know children can be very hateful to each other, and the other pupils were cruel.

That is why I have some sympathy with the Government's starting position, although I do not have an absolute view. I just share the desire to ensure

that we do what is right. We have a hospital school at Guy's for children who, for a short or long time, are patients at the hospital. It means that they have a school that meets their particular needs. It arranges classes around their timetables of treatment and care, accommodates their disabilities and physical difficulties and does not require them to travel long distances. There is a benefit in providing such a service at the beginning of a period during which youngsters who come here have particular education needs.

Kids are often brilliant at mixing and responding to the rest of the community. They do not worry about language; they just get on with it and sort themselves out within a short space of time. Therefore, there are huge advantages in ensuring that children are with other children as soon as possible, and not only with those of their own type from their own cultural background. If we are going to build a society of tolerance, understanding and respect, the Benetton adverts are right. We must mix children early when they do not notice colour and get on with life. Some needs may have to be met. Primary schools in my borough and elsewhere do a brilliant job of accommodating children wherever they come from. Most teachers will go out of their way to do that. Sometimes it is difficult, especially when the psychological needs are particularly demanding. Those needs may disappear in a short time, but the children must still acclimatise and face uncertainty, as the family may not know whether they will be staying.

I want to get the process right. It may be right for a short time, but it should be for no longer than a few months if sufficient numbers of children can be placed together. However, there is a danger of their becoming institutionalised, because the longer integration is delayed, the more difficult it is. We must listen to advice outside, as well as inside, the Committee about whether the teaching force has the capacity to deal with the numbers. Teachers in inner London and other urban schools may be better able to cope with a regular flow in an ever-changing class than those in schools in parts of the community where there has not been that tradition. Some of the accommodation centres are in places without much of a tradition of minorities, ethnic communities or asylum seekers. They may find it much more difficult generally. Not all my colleagues believe that. Some believe that there should be accommodation from the start. There are also issues relating to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees' declaration of the rights of the child.

The case was well put by the hon. Members for Regent's Park and Kensington, North and for Walthamstow. I am open to persuasion that children should be integrated from the start. However, a period of transition and acclimatisation may be appropriate for some children. We should explore that and take advice on it. There will never be unanimity, but I hope that we can at least obtain the best solution for possibly the most difficult years for people for whom we have a particular responsibility.

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

As has been said, the amendment would prevent us from supporting dependent children under the age of 18 in accommodation centres. All hon. Members have spoken passionately on a subject that is obviously of concern. I hope that my remarks will reassure hon. Members. I do not want to go too far down the line of particular education provision, as it is important that we debate the detail when we discuss the relevant clauses. However, I will touch on certain aspects.

The amendment would give rise to scenarios that my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North did not intend. If we were to say that families with children had to be separated if the parents went into accommodation but the children did not, I am sure that is not what my hon. Friend intended. I am sure that she would also accept that there may well be some practical difficulties if, for example, a couple in an accommodation centre had a child and did not want to be removed to other accommodation outside. In a technical sense that is what her amendment would do, and I am sure that she can see the difficulties of that. In that sense, her amendment will effectively mean that we are talking about accommodation centres for single people if we do not allow dependents in. That was not the intention or what the Government want to achieve in these trial—I emphasise trial—accommodation centres.

Many hon. Members have spoken very movingly about the situation of children in schools and the magnificent way in which teachers and the surrounding communities have looked after those children. My hon. Friend spoke of experiences in her own constituency and I know of similar circumstances in my own constituency, including tragic situations that I do not wish to detail. But it was clear that these were very vulnerable children who, luckily, received magnificent support from the school that was able to establish their particular difficulties. I pay absolute tribute to the work that is done in such situations and I am sure, from what my hon. Friend said about her own constituency, that they are also very well able to cope.

The debate brings home to me that a lot of these children are extremely vulnerable and that we also need to look at this matter in the context of our overall policy, as well as what we are trying to achieve through trialling these accommodation centres and the various measures that are being taken in this Bill.

The worst things for vulnerable children in such circumstances are delay and being in limbo, and not knowing whether refugee status is going to be granted or not. It is important that we look at how we can improve decision-making, and the accommodation centres are a vital part of that.

For clarification on a specific issue raised in the debate—I not sure if it was by my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's park and Kensington, North, or my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow—I emphasise that unaccompanied children will not be in accommodation centres.

We are trialling these accommodation centres and, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said, if these are successful, we may want to them to be introduced on a much wider basis. My hon. Friend mentioned education, but there will be other services on site. In considering the use of accommodation centres on a wider scale—the plan is that, for families with the kind of vulnerable children we are talking about, there should be separate accommodation—it is only right that that we make sure that we are providing the best services for those families and those children.

Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)

The Parliamentary Secretary rightly refers to services at the accommodation centres and clearly there is some serious thinking ahead on those matters. Could she confirm that it will be some months before any of the sites are chosen and announced, or will we hear sooner than that?

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

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary touched on that recently when there was a discussion about the sites that had been identified. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we plan to make firmer announcements sooner rather than later.

Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)

May we therefore expect an announcement within the next 10 days?

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

I am afraid that I cannot confirm a particular date but, as I said, it will be sooner rather than later. If I can give any further information, I will certainly do so.

Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)

On a point of order, Mr. Illsley. This reminds me of the exchange in the House of Lords some years ago when a Minister said that an answer would made soon. When asked to define ''soon'', he said that it meant ''before long''. When asked which was sooner, he replied that he would not be drawn into that difficult territory. It is an important topic. The Parliamentary Secretary would naturally never withhold anything from the Committee, but if she knows something to the effect that there will be an announcement within days or weeks, we should be told.

Mr Eric Illsley (Barnsley Central, Labour)

Order. That is not a point of order. It is a point of debate and if the Parliamentary Secretary does not have the information, there is nothing that the Chair can do about it.

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

All I can say is that two or three weeks would be nearer to the mark, if that is of any help to the hon. Gentleman. I have no more information than that, although I can confirm that the centres will not be open until 2003. To return to my point, as part of our overall strategy is to see whether accommodation centres are found to be effective, I hope that it will give my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North some reassurance to know that the evaluation system will be open and transparent and that all aspects of the provision will be examined.

My hon. Friends made a number of comments about preparing people for their eventually being granted refugee status. The provision at the accommodation centres could certainly play a role in achieving that. I am sure that my hon. Friends would

also acknowledge that people can be isolated, even within a community. There are a number of ways in which one could look at the support provided by having other people around within an accommodation centre. We also have to take that into account when looking at schools, although I do not want to go completely down that line, as there is an important debate to be had on the subject later.

We are trying to make the process as quick as possible, so we must also look at the effect on local schools of a turnover of pupils. We must take that into account if we are to achieve our objective of letting people have a decision as quickly as possible. Again, I say that one of the worst experiences for children can be the uncertainty of not knowing whether they will be able to stay in one country. We must examine provision in accommodation centres. If a family is granted refugee status, the children should be ready to go into mainstream education. That is precisely the point.

The clause is not about keeping children who have been granted refugee status out of mainstream education; it applies only to children who still have asylum-seeking status. Even that does not mean that provision cannot be made in the centres to prepare people—often an important aspect of ensuring quick integration once refugee status is granted.

Mr Parmjit Dhanda (Gloucester, Labour)

On evaluation, some schools—I visited one in central London in connection with the Science and Technology Committee—have become adaptable to and adept at meeting the needs of children from asylum-seeker and refugee families. What evaluation will apply to teaching provision in accommodation centres for such children? Will Ofsted be involved or will it be a matter for local education authorities? I do not know what balance will emerge. Will there be a mechanism for schools—perhaps schools in my constituency—to have an intake of refugees? St. Peter's school, for example, gained from the experience. Will it continue to have some link with accommodation centres?

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

I assure my hon. Friend that a close relationship with the LEA will continue and that Ofsted inspectors will also be involved.

Mr Parmjit Dhanda (Gloucester, Labour)

May I take my hon. Friend back to vulnerable children? We all agree that special thought should be given to the needs of children who are exceptionally vulnerable. Does she accept that an institutional setting, which is what an accommodation centre will be, may be highly unsuitable for placing families when the parents, and possibly even the children, are victims of torture? An institutional setting might be quite wrong for such a group of vulnerable people.

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

I understand that victims of torture are not dispersed. However, placement in a community may not necessarily be the most supportive environment. It may be a mistake to assume that a perfect life exists out there for asylum seekers who have been dispersed into the community. Some people in such circumstances might be highly vulnerable. We must not run away from that

possibility. It may not be commonplace, but it does occur when asylum seekers do not receive the high level of support that we would all like them to receive. People can feel vulnerable even in their current communities. I stress that this is a trial. It could be argued that an accommodation centre would provide a more supportive environment for some people, but that must be evaluated.

My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North asked about the number of people who might be considered. Taking the figure of 750 people in an accommodation centre, 100 to 150 children would be right. She also asked about the criteria. In addition to the availability of places, the broad primary criteria will be language, family situation and port of entry or induction centre. The criteria will be open and transparent.

I hope that my hon. Friends accept that we understand the concerns that they have raised, but I re-emphasise that we are talking about pilots. If the pilots are rolled out more widely, it will be important to ensure that the services that we provide are the best for children, and we can do that only through trials. With that assurance, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North will withdraw the amendment.

Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)

I must press the Parliamentary Secretary over the proposed sites. Does she or any ministerial colleague know the identity of any site that has been or is to be chosen by the Government? Does she know if or when any announcement will be made?

Mr Eric Illsley (Barnsley Central, Labour)

Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying outside the terms of the amendment, which are very narrow.

Ms Karen Buck (Regent's Park & Kensington North, Labour)

I intend to put sticky tape over my mouth for the rest of the day so that others have a chance to move on, but if we do not have this discussion now, we shall have it later.

On the initial point about the amendment's technical impact, there would be no need to separate families. Obviously, we are also discussing couples with dependants over 18, married couples without children and so on. The point is therefore not relevant, but in a sense this debate has been about exploring other issues.

I accept the point about turnover, and many points made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. There is no perfect solution, as we do not live in a perfect world—we do not have world peace and prosperity. None of these issues is easy, either here or internationally, but an overwhelming number of children are already provided for in mainstream services, a great deal of good practice has been established and a number of problems have been identified.

In summing up, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said that turnover is a particular issue in local communities. I accept that important point, but London schools are not unfamiliar with a turnover of 50 per cent. of children between key stages 1 and 2. As

a London Member of Parliament, I sometimes find it a little hard to listen to arguments about 150 children in a single LEA and the problems that they might bring to a school environment. One school has to cope with that number of children in constituencies such as mine and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, and without enough support or recognition of the problems it has to deal with.

That brings me back to the point that we have a great deal to learn and a great deal to make better, but we must do that in the mainstream—in London, for the people who are already here, in dispersal centres and in and around accommodation centres. The good practice in education and the experience that is, and will continue to be, brought to bear on this issue by the teaching profession, teaching representatives, the Local Government Association and all those with an interest in education will reinforce the point that we must make provision in the mainstream and get it right for everyone.

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

My hon. Friend might be reassured by the fact that although we are trialling accommodation centres, that does not mean that we are not trying to improve the situation in mainstream schools.

Ms Karen Buck (Regent's Park & Kensington North, Labour)

I appreciate that and I know that the proposal is not being ruled out, but we still have a long way to go.

There has been talk about flexibility, but the Bill does not allow sufficient flexibility for the children who would benefit from early access to mainstream education, which means most of them, to have that. In an ideal world, I would be perfectly happy with many children and families going into accommodation centres, because there is much to commend them due to their general support. However, that must be done in conjunction with access to mainstream services, particularly education, for many, most or all such children. That flexibility is not in the Bill.

I do not intend to press the amendment, but we shall probably return to the issue. I want flexibility for the children, who range from nought to 18 and span the whole spectrum of education provision. With the right support, many or most of them, and their communities, would be best served by the experience of coming to terms with a mixed intake. I am reassured by much of what the Parliamentary Secretary said and the spirit in which she made her remarks. I remain convinced that we need flexibility, but for the moment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.