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

I beg to move amendment No. 106, in page 11, line 28, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

''(1) A residence restriction may include a requirement to reside at an accommodation centre.''

A person arriving in the UK may be examined by an immigration officer to determine whether he or she should be granted permission to enter. Such people are liable to detention pending an examination and any decision to grant or refuse leave to enter. However, they may be temporarily admitted to the UK without being detained, or may be released from detention pending a decision. They are then made subject to residence and reporting instructions.

Furthermore, persons who have been notified of a decision to deport, or concerning whom a deportation order is in force, are liable to be detained. Where they are not detained, they too may be subject to residence and reporting restrictions. The clause enables residence restrictions to include a requirement to reside at an accommodation centre, in the same way that we can currently require someone to reside at a private address. The amendment will ensure that we have the necessary flexibility to require those who have been notified of a decision to deport, or who have been made the subject of a deportation order, to reside at an accommodation centre.

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

I have a question, and I am happy for the Under-Secretary to give the answer later, if she does not know it immediately. Once again from constituency casework, I am well aware that people are often refused, but given the right to be admitted in practice, with a later reporting date and so on. At some stage, will she be kind enough to tell us what percentage of people go through that initial process of refusal but admission, as opposed to refusal and detention?

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

I am afraid that I do not know the answer. I shall try to get the information for the hon. Gentleman and let him have it later in our proceedings.

Amendment agreed to.

Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 139, in page 11, line 36, leave out

''whether by him or by someone else''

and insert

''by himself of a member of his family.''

Mr Eric Illsley (Barnsley Central, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 180, in page 11, line 36, leave out ''someone else'' and insert ''a dependant''.

Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

Amendment No. 139, which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends, should say ''by himself or a member of his family'', but the amendment paper reads

''by himself of a member of his family''.

I hope that the misprint is corrected.

The amendment simply probes to discover further and better particulars from the Minister. It is wholly inappropriate that a person should be required to leave accommodation as a result of the actions of others, over whom no control has been exercised, in a form of absolute vicarious liability. What does she mean by ''someone else''? She is nodding furiously. I am sure that when the time comes, she will be able to fill us in.

It seems to be a wholly unreasonable proposition that the clause should be drafted so widely and so inappropriately. To dwell on the point, if someone in a centre with a group of friends had a party that got out of hand and broke the terms and conditions, it would be quite inequitable for that individual disproportionately to suffer punishment from which there was no escape and for something that they may not have been responsible for in the first place. As we know, all legislation is gender blind, although the wording implies a man. However, we must consider the position of women who may be in such centres and what might happen in circumstances over which a woman has no control whatever.

It is not unreasonable to propose a substitution and to say that a member of the family is someone over whom an individual may be expected to have some control. Therefore, we would substitute the words

''by himself or a member of his family''

in the hope of some recognition of the fact that the drafting is inappropriate in such conditions. I hope that the Minister, after all her furious nodding and smiling, agrees with me and either accepts my proposal or makes one of her own that would tighten up that area and not leave such a gaping, inequitable provision in the Bill.

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

The amendments are variations on a theme. The hon. Lady has spoken to one; ours would restrict the liability factor in subsection (3). Her amendment proposes that someone should be liable to penalty only if there is a breach by that person or a member of their family. Our alternative proposition, if the Government find it more acceptable, is that someone would be liable only if there were a breach by that person or a dependant. I think that we are knocking on the same door.

We certainly think that when there is a residence requirement one should not be held liable for breaching it if the fault is widely drawn as someone else's. I shall make the link points now, rather than during the debate on clause stand part: subsections (1), (2) and (4) seem entirely reasonable, but subsection (3) seems entirely unreasonable—that element raises the big issues. The debate will test both specific liability and the wider point.

I do not propose to ask the Committee to vote to remove subsection (3), but I hope that it is amended substantially or taken out on Report. I understand that under the 31-year-old Immigration Act 1971, the Secretary of State can, quite reasonably, impose restrictions on somebody to control where they live. That has always been the case during our political lifetimes. It is proposed that it should continue and there is no argument about that. However, it raises the issue of what happens if someone breaks their residency condition, which is already regarded as affecting the credibility of an asylum application. I understand that, and I think that I am right in saying that it has been tested in the European courts as being compatible with the European convention on human rights. A breach of a residency requirement can relate to the credibility of an asylum application, but we must tread carefully.

The right to make a case for asylum and the right to be granted asylum, which are two different things, are not qualified in the convention because they are absolute rights provided that an applicant, having made their case, fulfils the conditions on fear of persecution. That has always governed us, and we were parties to the convention when it started.

Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is an interesting parallel in criminal law? If a person breaks his bail conditions it is not held against the merit of his case when it comes before court.

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

The hon. Gentleman is particularly qualified to give that as an example from his experience as a recorder. He and I share a concern that clause 21(3) links three things: the asylum application and its merit, the conditionality of residence, which already affects the credibility of the asylum application, and the residence condition, which will be linked to behaviour in the place of residence. Clause 21(3) clearly states that

''if the person is required to leave an accommodation centre at which he is resident as the result of the breach''—

we are debating who could be responsible for the breach—

''of a condition of residence, he shall be treated as having broken the residence restriction referred to in subsection (1).''

In the most extreme case, someone may be asked to leave a centre because glasses were broken during a party, for which other people were responsible. A less extreme case may involve someone's personal behaviour—they may have come back an hour late at the end of the day and were required to leave by the management. That would be regarded as a breach of the residency requirement that related to the acceptability or credibility of their asylum

application. Unless the Minister can point to another part of the Bill in which that is contradicted, the fact that someone had been required to leave the centre would, in theory, trigger the possibility of being detained, being refused leave or being summarily removed. It must be wrong that someone's behaviour in an accommodation centre, however bad, should determine their asylum application.

We have had that debate in another context. If somebody misbehaves and breaks the law, they are punished according to the law, and it makes no difference whether they are an asylum seeker or a native-born Briton. If they are in an institution and break the rules, they are punished according to the rules—the only way in which punishment can happen. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) and I are justified in putting this case because page 57 of the White Paper states:

''Residents of Accommodation Centres who breach these''

residency or reporting

''requirements will be left in no doubt that their actions may affect the outcome of their asylum claim, where the non-compliance damages their credibility.''

The Immigration Law Practitioners Association takes a view, similar to mine, that it is entirely unacceptable for a person's asylum claim to be affected by their behaviour. They are unrelated matters, and behaviour is not relevant to proper consideration of the entitlement to asylum. The Refugee Council says that it would oppose any plan to link any aspects of an individual's behaviour in an accommodation centre to their asylum claim, which, it says, would not only be contrary to the spirit of the 1951 convention, but would lead to legal challenges and place further pressure on the Immigration Appellate Authority.

The Government may not like it when people misbehave. I do not know what happened at Yarl's Wood or how that started, because I have not seen the report, but it appears that there was some misbehaviour. If there was misbehaviour, people must be punished: if they broke the law, they should be prosecuted. However, even if there were severe misbehaviour, that should not make people liable to have their asylum claims considered differently. However tempting it is when under pressure suddenly to move people into new categories for which the Government can find new excuses to turn down asylum applications, it is morally wrong. I hope that the Government confirm that the clause needs redrafting.

Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)

If ever two amendments ought to be accepted, either with their present or similar wording, these are they. Make no mistake, clause 21(3) reads as follows:

''the person is required to leave an accommodation centre at which he is resident as the result of the breach (whether by him or by someone else) of a condition of residence''.

That is what it says in plain English, and it will not do.

The parallel that I used was that of a criminal court. If a person is given bail with a condition of residency at an address and he breaches that by not residing at the address, he is separately dealt with by the court for

a breach of the bail condition. It is inconceivable that that person would have adverse inferences, about their defence or their case, drawn from that breach. That would be a ludicrous proposition. I urge hon. Members to take that on board and realise how grossly unfair—and possibly illegal—it would be for the merits of someone's asylum case to be affected by the conduct of someone else over whom they had no control. Even to argue that someone's asylum claim could be affected as a result of his breaching a condition is astonishing.

The Home Office website states:

''Anyone who breaks the rules will lose support.''

Can the Minister be specific and say what would happen in various scenarios if the rules were broken? The website also states:

''Breaking the rules may also affect their claim for asylum.''

Can the Minister say exactly what is meant by that? Does it mean that if a case if full of merit, the adjudicator will have the breach drawn to his or her attention and will be told to take less notice of the merit because of the breach? Even that is an absurd proposition, but to go further and say that a person's position would be affected by the conduct of someone else over whom they have no control is, in my respectful view, ludicrous. I cannot see how the Home Office can possibly justify the clause.

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

First, I would like to reassure Opposition Members about the meaning of ''someone else'' in this context. Clause 26 makes it clear that if a person or their dependant breaches a condition, both may be required to leave the centre, in accordance with policy. I hope that everyone accepts that there must be certain rules and standards of behaviour. Clearly, criminal law will apply to certain forms of behaviour but, short of the criminal law, it is necessary for good order that there are rules and standards of behaviour. Therefore, it is appropriate that there should be sanctions if people breach those rules. The sanctions will depend on and be proportionate to the extent and seriousness of the breach. I would not expect any disagreement with that.

Secondly, the reference to ''someone else'' in subsection (3) that has caused concern can only refer to the dependant referred to in clause 26. That is not a wide use that allows us to attach anyone else to the individual.

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

It does not say that.

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

That is what it means. ''Someone else'' refers to the dependant that is mentioned in clause 26. We do not have the power at present, nor will the Bill give us the power, to require anyone other than the resident or his or her dependant to leave as a result of a breach of conditions. I am sorry if hon. Gentlemen and the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), who made an equally important intervention on this issue, do not believe me, but that is the case. We do not have an arbitrary power to require anyone who may be completely unrelated to an individual to leave an accommodation

centre or suffer any detriment for a breach, of whatever seriousness, simply because they happened to be in the same place. Clearly, that would be absurd.

Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)

Is the Minister telling us that clause 26 says that ''someone else'' shall mean a dependant? If it does, I stand corrected. Otherwise, it is no good her telling us that she is advised that it can only mean a dependant, because the advice that she has received is bunkum.

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

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should take that up with parliamentary counsel. Let me reiterate: the power to require someone to leave a centre comes from clause 26. We have not yet examined the clause in Committee, but the key reference in it is to ''any dependant''. Therefore, ''someone else'' as mentioned in clause 21 refers to the dependant and to no one else.

Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)

Why not say so?

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

The language used is a drafting issue. I am merely conveying to the Committee our understanding of what it means. Clearly, it would be absurd for us to have an arbitrary power to expel from accommodation centres people who are unrelated or who are not dependants, because of the behaviour of someone else. The Government have no intention of doing that. We do not have the power to do it now, and the Bill, were it to become an Act, would not give us such a power. I state that as a fact but, clearly, Opposition Members do not believe me.

Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

Methinks the hon. Lady doth protest too much. She agrees with us that arbitrarily requiring someone to leave because of the behaviour of someone else is ridiculous. She referred to clause 26(4) and (5), which clearly say,

''require the resident and any dependant''.

What possible objection can she have to substituting the words ''or a dependant or a member of his family'' in subsection (3). That is not for parliamentary counsel. The hon. Lady is the Minister, so she can instruct parliamentary counsel and she can tell them what to do. She is in charge of the legislation, and she should listen to her own common sense and replace those words.

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

We have had three run-ins about plain English, and I suspect that this is another example. ''Someone else'' refers to dependants in clause 26, so the ''someone else'' referred to in clause 21 can only be the dependants. That is the legal advice we are working from. The position is exactly the same as that which the Opposition have declared is their wish. It is already in the Bill, so there is no need to change it. There is no way under the Bill that ''someone else'' can mean anything other than dependants, to which clause 26(4) and (5) refer.

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

Will the Minister give way?

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

I do not know what good it will do.

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

I cannot work out whether the hon. Lady has not been a Minister long enough or has been a Minister too long. She is not being as robust as usual and as I know she can be.

If we are going for plain English, the wording must be consistent between one clause and another. The Minister understands the point. We can all do the cross-referencing, but life should not consist of cross-referencing and finding that a phrase on one page means something else two pages later. I am simply asking her to tell her draftspeople to make the wording in clause 21(3) the same as that in clause 26(4) and (5). It is not difficult. It can be done on a word processor and does not even require a parliamentary draftsman.

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

I think that parliamentary draftsmen would be worried about the hon. Gentleman's last point.

I can only reiterate that there is no intention of arbitrarily visiting on someone who is not a dependant the consequences of someone else's behaviour. I shall consider what hon. Members have said, but my strong advice and my understanding is that there is no difference between what is in the Bill and what is in the amendments. I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.

Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)

The Minister has dealt with one aspect of the matter, although not satisfactorily, but she failed to answer our other question. Exactly what effect will it have on an asylum applicant's case in legal terms?

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

I suppose that we all got caught up in the problem of ''someone else'' and ''dependants''. I hope that I can reassure hon. Members about the other issues that were raised in the general debate.

We cannot, will not and do not intend automatically to refuse an asylum seeker's claim merely because of their behaviour. Opposition Members are worrying too much about that. We must assess asylum claims, regardless of behaviour, but someone's credibility may be affected by non-compliance. I emphasise ''may be'', and each case must be examined before making a judgment. There is no automatic refusal. Bad people or people who do not comply may be genuine refugees and may be granted refugee status. I shall give some examples.

Behaviour may be taken into account if it is relevant to the claim. It is extremely unlikely that someone who broke a glass—the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey used that example—would be required to leave the centre, and even less likely that that behaviour would be taken into account in their asylum claim. It is almost impossible to imagine that it would. However, if someone failed to live in an accommodation centre and sought employment but it turned out that the employment was set up before the asylum seeker arrived, that may be a relevant consideration to take into account in the asylum claim. That is all that is meant by the wording in the clause. Each case will be taken on its merits; any behaviour consideration must be relevant to the claim, or it cannot be considered. With that reassurance, I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw the amendment.

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

I am glad that the Minister will consider the small drafting point that we made. We look forward to that being easily dealt with.

On the more substantive matter, I hear what the Minister says, but that is not what the Bill permits. I understand her point, but a person's behaviour and whether they comply with the requirements for accommodation should be, and in my view must be by law, separate from the merits of the application. When an adjudication is made on an application, all the information is taken into account in the context of the application. There is no need for any wording in the Bill. There should certainly not be a link back, so that in theory a small breach of a condition of residence, such as coming in late or not coming back one evening, which may have an entirely innocent explanation, could be treated as relevant for the purposes of the person's asylum application. There is nothing to stop that in the law as proposed. In law that is wrong, and it should be taken out. I am happy to talk to civil servants and Ministers about why it should be taken out, and we can obtain legal advice about it, but I am sure that it should go. I hope that, on Report, the Government will agree. If they do not, I give notice that, in this House and in the other place, we will seek to have the provision removed.

Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

I concur with what the hon. Gentleman has just said. It will be interesting to see what happens when the Minister has an opportunity to reflect on the matter away from the Committee and before the Bill returns to the Floor of the House.

I shall not press the amendment to a vote. The Minister knows how Opposition Members feel on this issue. I have a sneaking suspicion that she agrees with us. It is a shame that, for the sake of some rather poor advice, she is sticking to this inaccurate wording. If subsection (3) is to remain in the Bill, I urge her to reconsider it, because it is still open to false interpretation, always assuming that Pepper v. Hart prevails and, therefore, that what she has said will be taken into consideration when the Bill is interpreted. It is an unsatisfactory situation. I am sure that the Minister is capable of asserting her authority over parliamentary draftsmen and repairing the matter in her own way. As it is not something that we shall die in a ditch over, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

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

For the reasons that I gave before, I cannot support the clause. I shall not force a vote now, but I hope that it will come back in a better form on the Floor of the House. If not, we shall oppose it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 21, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 22 to 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.