Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 142, in page 12, line 20, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.

Mr Eric Illsley (Barnsley Central, Labour)

With this we may take the following: Government amendment No. 107.

Amendment No. 184, in page 12, line 29, after 'training', insert

'(which will include education and training in the English language, information technology and business skills)'.

Government amendment No. 108.

Amendment No. 144, in page 12, line 30, after 'medical', insert 'and psychiatric'.

Government amendment No. 109.

Amendment No. 143, in page 12, line 33, at end insert—

'(j) independent legal advice and representation, funded by the Legal Services Commission or by the Secretary of State.'.

Amendment No. 145, in page 12, line 33, at end insert—

'(k) comprehensive interpreting services'.

Amendment No. 183, in page 12, line 33, at end insert—

'(j) adequate leisure and play facilities.'.

Amendment No. 185, in page 12, line 36, after '(1)(b)', insert

'such amount to be no less than 10 per cent. of the relevant income support personal allowance.'.

Amendment No. 186, in page 12, line 37, leave out paragraph (b).

Government amendment No. 115.

Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)

This is one of the most important clauses in the Bill. It merits a serious debate, because so many people across the country involved in asylum and immigration work have expressed views about it. The clause relates to the services and facilities in an accommodation centre, and all that will happen in them.

I want to preface my remarks, Mr. Illsley, by apologising for raising on a previous clause a question that was not relevant at the time. However, it is relevant to this clause, because the accommodation centres will open in due course and the services will be available. Many people are listening to this debate to find out what facilities will be available, when they will open and when an announcement will be made about the chosen sites.

Has a decision been made about the proposed sites? If so, is it to be announced in the next two or three weeks? Will she confirm that no decision will be made or announced until the Bill has completed its passage through both Houses of Parliament? Otherwise, the Government would be making decisions without the scrutiny of both Houses of Parliament. I am sure that the Minister will want to answer those specific questions.

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

To put the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest, I can tell him that we have not made decisions on which sites we shall go ahead with. We are considering which sites to submit planning applications for, and that is the beginning of the process. Planning is never a forgone conclusion, as the hon. Gentleman will know. An announcement on which sites we intend to submit planning notifications will be made soon, but no

decision has been taken about individual sites or which sites we shall build on. We are simply looking at sites on which planning applications can be submitted.

Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)

That is helpful. The Committee and others outside will want to know what the Minister undoubtedly knows: which sites will the Government nominate as sites for which they wish to apply for planning? Can she specifically answer that during the debate?

Amendment No. 142 is the important amendment, but I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 144, 143 and 145 as well. The clause reads:

''The Secretary of State may arrange for the following to be provided to a resident''.

Amendment No. 142 provides that the Government ''shall'' instead of ''may''.

People in the accommodation centres will often come from a difficult and vulnerable background. Many will have undertaken long and hazardous journeys. They will come to centres where they are likely to live, sometimes with their families, for a period which, according to the Minister, could be four months. The first few days and the first two or three weeks of an asylum applicant's life in this country are terribly important, and it is vital that the fullest possible range of services is provided to the applicant and his or her family at the earliest opportunity. While we welcome a number of the services proposed, we strongly believe that it should be a duty on the Secretary of State to arrange for them to be provided. It should not simply be a possibility—something that the Secretary of State may do—because that gives the Secretary of State freedom to provide some services in one accommodation centre and others or fewer in another. My hon. Friends and I believe that there is a need to provide the services, and the Bill would be much better phrased if it placed a duty on the Secretary of State. As the Minister will say, in due course, that services will be provided, why does the Bill not say that they will be provided, rather than

''The Secretary of State may arrange''?

If the Minister has doubts about whether they will be provided, she should say so. However, if she is in no doubt about their provision, the Bill should say that the Secretary of State shall arrange for them to be provided.

What is not included in the list that should be there? First and most important, there should be on-site, independent legal advice and representation, funded by the Legal Services Commission or by the Secretary of State. I have been to Oakington, as have some of my colleagues. The Immigration Advisory Service offers full legal representation on that site. The Refugee Council or the Refugee Legal Centre—forgive me, I know which it is but it has escaped my mind—is also there in great number. I believe that there are 54 caseworkers from the Immigration Advisory Service.

What happens at Oakington? Admittedly, there are different types of cases, because some are said to be easier to determine. However, the reality is that as

soon as someone arrives, they receive legal advice on the site. That must apply to accommodation centres as well. Goodness knows, every non-governmental organisation involved in asylum or immigration work and everyone that is interested in the subject agrees that access to legal advice at the earliest possible stage is absolutely vital. We will come on to that when we discuss induction centres.

Clearly, there should be a duty on the Home Secretary to provide legal advice and representation on site—not somewhere else—for asylum seekers. Why? According to the Government, the purpose of an accommodation centre is to have a smooth, speedy, satisfactory, humane and efficient resolution of an asylum application. Therefore, it must be right to offer on-the-spot legal advice as part of the operation.

I have seen it written down in Home Office documents and I have heard the Home Secretary and the Minister say that the Government intend to provide legal advice and assistance at or sufficiently near accommodation centres. If that is the case, why are they omitted from the Bill? The Bill says:

''The Secretary of State may arrange for the following'',

and lists food, money, assistance with transport, education and training, medical facilities, facilities for religious observance and

''anything which the Secretary of State thinks ought to be provided for a person because of his exceptional circumstances.''

Why are the classically important legal advice and assistance not included? They should be.

I hope that the Minister will agree to the amendment. Many outside the House support it, and it is wholly supported by my hon. Friends and I, and, I believe, by the Liberal Democrats and many Labour Back Benchers who know the importance of immediate legal advice and agree that its presence on site at an accommodation centre is critical. If an accommodation centre is located in a rural location, let us not be told that legal advice is available miles away. Let us not be told that transportation facilities are not too bad if an asylum seeker wishes to travel for an hour or two to get advice. Let us not be told that there are local lawyers prepared to give advice if someone is seeking it. Let us be told that the Government will offer legal advice on site.

Mr Eric Illsley (Barnsley Central, Labour)

Order. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman, but this seems a good time to suspend the Committee until 5 pm.

Sitting suspended.

On resuming—

Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)

I welcome you back to the Chair, Mr. Hurst. You have missed a most interesting session. We are now debating amendment No. 142 and its group, under the very important clause 25. I had concluded my remarks on amendment No. 142, urging the Minister to accept ''shall'' instead of ''may'', and almost concluded my remarks on the absolute need to have independent legal advice and representation,

funded by the Legal Services Commission or by the Secretary of State, present on site.

The Government may make a planning application in respect of a rural site. I am anxious to draw observations from the Minister on that when she replies. What will happen if the site at Bicester or, more accurately, the village of Piddington, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry)? I am sure that the Minister will be prepared to tell us, if she knows, whether that rural site has been selected as one in respect of which an application will be made. If she does not know that, I am sure that she will be prepared to tell us that she does not know, and silence from her on the point would indicate a complete absence of knowledge. If I am wrong, I am sure that she will tell us at some stage of the debate. If an application were made for that site, any legal advice would be miles away. The closest proper legal advice—for want of a better phrase—would be in Oxford, where legal services are already heavily overstrained because of demand. All the more reason, therefore, to say that legal advice must be present on site.

I shall speak to two other amendments in the group. Amendment No. 144 would add ''psychiatric''. If the Minister tells me that the phrase ''medical facilities'' includes psychiatric services, I shall be entirely content. In reality, as she well knows, many people who claim asylum are heavily traumatised, not least the youngsters, after the most horrific experiences. The presence of those services on site is most important.

Comprehensive interpreting services are also important. I think that I have seen several references to them. If we are to have the one-stop shop, which I think is so important, at accommodation centres, every relevant service must be on site. The Minister's hope that the applicant will remain on site only for a brief time could then become reality. The converse would be the case were those services not on site, especially in a rural accommodation centre, where people would have to travel long distances to get the services, and the efficiency that the Minister seeks would not be found.

I believe that the Minister should take on board my amendments to change the wording to ''shall'', to provide ''independent legal advice'' and to add ''psychiatric'' services and ''comprehensive interpreting services''.

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

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

The amendments cover the whole range of provision in accommodation centres. I hope that Opposition Members will work from the premise that we have taken powers to provide what we need to fund. The list in subsection (1) includes provisions that the Home Office will be funding, and needs to take statutory powers to fund. It does not include those provisions for which a statutory power to fund already exists in other legislation. That is the explanation for the non-appearance of legal services in that list. There is no doubt whatever that legal services will be freely available in accommodation centres as required. In the trials, we would certainly want to develop co-located services or access to services, so that visitors would come to the accommodation centre to provide services, rather than individuals leaving the centres to get legal services.

We do not need to include legal services in the list, because the vast bulk of them are funded not by the Home Office, but by the Legal Services Commission, which already has the power to do so. There is no intention that commission funding should not apply to accommodation centres, as it already applies to other measures. That explains why legal services are not in the list.

Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)

Does the Home Office fund the Immigration Advisory Service?

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

Yes, but there are moves to shift the funding of such organisations away from the Home Office to the Lord Chancellor's Department to ensure that there is no perceived conflict of interest in the Home Office running a system and funding legal advice to the people in it.

Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)

Like Oakington.

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

Well, there are people who believe that Home Office funding for such things is odd, and raises issues of independence and potential conflicts of interest.

Under section 81 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, the Home Office grants funds to the Refugee Legal Centre and the Immigration Advisory Service. Clause 87 provides an equivalent power as regards those with a right of appeal under part 5, subject to geographical constraints. It would certainly be open to accommodation centre residents who are appellants to access advice, and we intend to provide it. Legal advice is not in the list simply because it will be funded not by the Home Office but by the Legal Services Commission, which comes under the Lord Chancellor's Department. The list deals with those

services over which we will have to take explicit new powers in primary legislation if we are to fund them; it is not an exhaustive list of what we intend to provide in accommodation centres.

Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)

Is the Minister saying that legal services are not in the list because the Home Office will not provide the funding? If so, what does she say to the point that the Home Office funds the Immigration Advisory Service, which is present at Oakington? Will it not be present and funded at accommodation centres?

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

Clause 25 refers to what will be done at accommodation centres, not to the rest of the system, which is regulated by the 1999 Act. I have just mentioned the provision in the Act that gives the Home Office the right to fund the Refugee Legal Service and any other services at Oakington.

Clause 25 refers to a new creation—accommodation centres. We intend that such centres will have legal advice providers and that the Legal Services Commission will provide and pay for that advice. Legal advice was omitted from the list because it will be funded by the commission, not the Home Office—that is the innocent explanation. The list deals with the new powers that we want to take to fund new provisions, and accommodation centres will be new. The Government do not intend to leave people in such centres, which may be in semi-rural areas, starved of access to legal advice—that is simply not on our radar.

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

I completely understand the Minister's argument, but the drafting is still flawed in two respects. The clause states:

''The Secretary of State may arrange for the following to be provided to a resident''.

It therefore facilitates the provision of the service, but also indirectly gives residents an entitlement. If arranging and providing services that are not Home Office obligations is to be a Government obligation, there must presumably be a statutory provision somewhere, even if that affects another Department. I understand that.

My question, in passing, because I am ignorant about such things, is why are three sections in italics, but not the rest?

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

On the italics point, I have absolutely no idea. On the other question, there are general powers that allow us to provide services as and when they are useful to everyone concerned. That brings me to another of the hon. Gentleman's worries—interpreters. We do not specifically allow for the funding of interpreters in any part of the system, but we have sufficient statutory cover to do that, and we believe that it assists the process for all concerned, although it is not referred to in the Bill. Just because something is not listed in the Bill does not mean that it is not provided. Interpretation services are a prime example of that.

The answer to the question from the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey about italics is that sections in italics need money resolutions. I now want to deal with this large group of amendments as

quickly as possible to facilitate the Committee's progress.

Amendment No. 142 would place a duty on us to provide all the facilities listed in clause 25 to residents of accommodation centres, but there is no equivalent duty to provide such services to those who are in dispersal accommodation and in accommodation under the 1999 Act. That would be slightly odd. We are committed to supporting destitute asylum seekers and to providing an appropriate range of services to residents of accommodation centres. We have powers to provide basic living needs and a small cash allowance, education for children on site, primary health care, purposeful activities for adults, including English language training, facilities for religious observance, interpretation facilities, assistance with the initial journey to the centre, travel to appeal hearings and asylum interviews and access to legal advice. All those things will be provided, but as Opposition Members will see, not all of them is included in the list.

Government amendment No. 107 is necessary to make it clear that the Secretary of State may fund transport to asylum interviews at which the person's presence has been requested by the immigration and nationality department. Without the amendment, clause 25(1)(c) may have only enabled the Secretary of State to fund travel to appeal hearings or other proceedings mentioned specifically in the 1999 Act. The amendment will allow us to fund other necessary trips that are not related to formal hearings. I hope that hon. Members will see that that is a beneficial change.

Amendment No. 184 is unnecessary because the powers in clause 25 are sufficiently wide to enable us to provide the items that it suggests, and more. We intend to offer asylum seekers access to training in English language and IT skills, because they are transferable skills, which will be useful here or back in the asylum seeker's country of origin, if their claim fails. It is right that asylum seekers should use their time in the United Kingdom productively. However, we do not want to be constrained by that list. As this is a trial, it may become obvious that we could also do other things, and the powers in clause 25 will allow us wider discretion than the amendment would. We shall work with the Department for Education and Skills and the Learning and Skills Council on offering training in English to speakers of other languages and other training provision in accommodation centres. As we are fairly close, at least in spirit, on that issue, I hope that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey will not press that amendment.

I hope that Government amendment No. 108 will alleviate the problems that the hon. Member for Woking has with the provision, which caused him to table amendment No. 144. The hon. Gentleman referred to psychiatric health issues. Amendment No. 108 widens the scope of the provision from purely medical facilities to health facilities. The Oxford English Dictionary defines medical as pertaining to the science or practice of medicine in general or

pertaining to medicine as opposed to surgery. That was not quite what we had in mind, whereas health is defined much more widely and could include psychiatric difficulties. In view of that, we consider that ''facilities relating to health'' will better reflect the health care that we want to be able to provide in accommodation centres. With that assurance, I hope that amendment No. 144 will not be pressed.

I dealt with the hon. Gentleman's views on legal advice. The other issue that he raised was whether we should use ''shall'' rather than ''may.'' We are using ''may'', not because we want to wriggle out of providing the items in the list as provisions in accommodation centres, but because we are conducting a trial and may want to add other things. ''Shall'' is too limiting at the trial stage, but we have no intention of wriggling out of the list and providing an accommodation centre with beds and no other facilities. That would make no sense.

As for amendment No. 145, the hon. Member for Woking wants to create an explicit power to provide interpretation. The Home Office routinely provides interpretation, even though it is not explicitly mentioned in statue that we have that direct power to do so. Clearly, the provision of interpretation enables us to conduct our day-to-day business more effectively, including the functions under the immigration legislation. We considered whether we needed to take an express power to provide interpreters, but concluded that it was unnecessary. Its absence from the list does not mean that we do not intend to provide it.

The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey tabled amendment No. 183, wanting to provide leisure facilities. I hope that he will consider Government amendment No. 109, which enables us to provide leisure and recreational facilities in so far as they are necessary to provide proper occupation and maintain good order. That is a wide enabling power, which allows us to provide wider services than the explicit ones mentioned in his amendment. I hope that he agrees that there is no particular difference between our provisions and will not press his amendment to a Division.

With regard to amendments Nos. 185 and 180 and the 10 per cent. of income support that the hon. Gentleman proposes, we have not decided exactly how large to make the cash allowance. We are thinking about a range of £5 to £14, but no final decisions have been made. That is a similar range to the one that the 10 per cent. of income support would provide. I would not want to be committed to a percentage of income support, but the hon. Gentleman may be reassured by the range that I have given. Government amendment No. 115 corrects a misprint, and we do not need to be detained by it.

Given all those reassurances, I hope that the hon. Member for Woking will withdraw the amendment and that hon. Members will support the Government amendments.

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

Responding to the Minister, I shall work backwards up the list. In relation to the pocket money amendments, I think that she accepts the

principle, but she neglected to deal with whether the responsibility should be central or delegated. I shall return to that matter in a moment, before the hon. Member for Woking speaks. As she seems to accept the principle of the 10 per cent. income support level, it would be helpful if the Government would come to a firm decision on that before the next stage of the Bill.

I am not convinced that Government amendment No. 109 exactly covers the leisure and play proposal, but my amendment was only a probing amendment. The amendment seems simply to allow the Government to decide nearer the time what might be appropriate, but is a bit opaque and difficult to read in advance, so it does have a weakness.

The substantive points made under the group of amendments related to the contents of the list and the ''may'' and ''shall'' debate. With regard to the contents of the list, the Government's arguments remain problematic in several respects. First, the reason why accommodation centres have a list at all—even if trialled—when people in dispersal do not, is because those who go into accommodation centres will be made to do so. They will not have a choice about that. It is my understanding that the state, having told those people where they must go, must make proposals through Parliament about the facilities for those people. That being the case, whatever we collectively agree is necessary should be in the list. The Minister is right to say that that is different from the set of 17, six or five criteria on the list for dispersal. By definition, and with the best will in the world, it may be impossible to tack all the criteria on to dispersal, given all the places to which people are dispersed. The logic is different.

I should mention that we were grateful for the explanation of why the criteria are listed in and out of italics. I have seen that format in other Bills. I must have been given an explanation before and subliminally remembered it, but had actually forgotten it. If all the criteria listed are meant to be provided by the Government, there is no harm—indeed, there is benefit—in their being listed.

In parenthesis, I accept the Minister's response about what education and training should be provided. The knowledge that English language and IT will be provided, and that other things may be, seems a good starting point. I do not want to dispute that with her.

I shall move on to the question of ''shall'' or ''may'' in relation to legal services. I understand the Minister's point about facilities being available for the Government to fund and provide legal services. I do not predict how the hon. Member for Woking will respond, but I think that it will seem to him as well as me that anyone who wants to know about interpretation, legal advice and assistance should be able to find them in the legislation in the same list as all the other criteria. Also, they must be guaranteed to the same level.

I understand that a different Department may be primarily responsible, as legal services are the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor's Department,

not of the Home Office. However, I ask the Minister to reflect on my point. The inclusion of those criteria is important for us, as it would guarantee the certainty of legal representation and the asylum claim being properly considered. That is the big issue on which all the others depend.

Mr Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow, Labour)

Would the hon. Gentleman like to think about the level at which decisions might be taken on whether provision should be made in a specific centre? Are we to expect that to be done at the top of the Legal Services Commission, or on a more regional basis? I would feel more reassured if I knew that it would be done centrally.

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

That is a good point. I will not repeat it, but I endorse it. There must be common standards for the small number of places trialled around the country. We would all want that to be assured, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman's point is picked up.

Although the Minister dealt with other arguments, she did not tackle the fact that we all know the difference between saying that the Secretary of State ''may'' or ''shall'' do something. If one says ''may'' and the service is not provided, there is no legal remedy. If one says ''shall'', there is a legal remedy. The Government should say that they will provide basic requirements for anyone in the country, especially those whose asylum cases are being processed. The wording should therefore use ''shall'', and there should be consequential legal remedy if those requirements are not provided.

That might change the nature of the list, but the list should reflect what is needed. I hope that Ministers think about that, but my colleagues and I, the hon. Member for Woking and his colleagues, and some Back Benchers from the Labour party and other parties may want to push the Government further on it, either today or downstairs sometime. I hope that we can make progress. As in all things, the quicker we reach agreement, the fewer debates we shall need to have on the same subject on later stages of the Bill.

Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)

I must say that I am disappointed by the Minister's response. I am not alone: to judge from their faces, several of her colleagues are disappointed as well, but perhaps I misjudge them.

To return to the question that I put to the Minister, we were talking about legal advice and the fact that the Government were shortly to announce that they proposed to make a planning application in relation to the land at Bicester. I asked the Minister specifically whether she or any of her colleagues could enlighten us about that, and whether she or they had any knowledge of such an announcement about such a site. I asked whether she could respond. She has not responded.

The Minister will understand that if an announcement is made during the next week or two, while the Bill is in Committee or in the other place, many of us would regard it as an affront to the parliamentary system. The Government should not proceed without full consultation while the debate is still in full flow. We shall have to wait and see. Perhaps the Minister is silent because there is nothing—repeat,

nothing—she can tell us because she simply does not know. That is the fairest explanation. I cannot think that, knowing something, she would remain firmly seated and fail to tell us. She has remained so seated—until now. I give way to the hon. Lady.

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

The hon. Gentleman knows full well that I made a statement a while ago that an announcement would be made shortly about a move to proceed to make planning applications in some of the areas mentioned in the list. There will be no move to build accommodation centres ahead of Royal Assent to the Bill, and he knows very well why that is the case. We expect to make an announcement on moves to proceed toward making planning applications; it is only the beginning of the process.

Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)

I have never heard anything like that in my life—the Minister will not tell us. That is an insult to us all, because we are debating the location of accommodation centres, we debated their size earlier, and more debates are to come in the other place, and on Report and Third Reading. If our understanding that the Government are going to make an application in respect of some of those sites is correct, it suggests that they have made up their mind. I specifically asked, as an example, if the site at Bicester, which is very rural, would be among them and thus relevant to the clause, but the Minister clearly does not know. If she did know, she would say so. I leave it at that.

I said that I was disappointed about that, but I am disappointed also that the Minister is not willing to include in the Bill the sensible provision that independent legal advice and representation should be provided and funded by the Legal Services Commission or the Secretary of State. All hon. Members should make a visit to the Oakington centre, because it is well run: there are 54 case workers from the Refugee Legal Centre on site, and another 54 from the Immigration Advisory Service. One goes as an asylum applicant to Oakington, and what happens next? As I understand it, one is immediately—within a day—advised by competent legal advisers. A high and consistent standard of advice is a good thing, which rather suggests that the RLC and the IAS should be present at all such centres, because that would result in a consistently high quality of advice. Advice pursuant to the Legal Services Commission might not be as consistent; that point was made earlier.

Oakington works well at least in part because advice is given on the spot. The Minister's reasoning for not including that provision in the Bill worries us, as legal advice is often much more important than many of the other facilities that are provided under the Bill. Indeed, it is almost the most important service, and the Minister's reason for not including it in the Bill worries us, especially as she insists on keeping in the Bill the provision that it ''may'' be provided rather than that it ''shall'' be provided. I feel strongly that such advice should be available.

As I understand it, the Government, through the Home Office, fund the Immigration Advisory Service. As for the Minister's concern about the fact that the

Government pay those who provide the advice so that there is some sensitivity and difficulty about independence and conflict of interest, that is complete nonsense; it has not been raised in years. The IAS, like other bodies, operates entirely independently, so the Minister's point is spurious. As for the Legal Services Commission, I understand that it does not have to provide legal services; it will be up to the whim of the local regional manager, so there is no guarantee of legal services from that source.

Why will the Minister not have the provision in the Bill? I believe that many Committee members share my view. We are disappointed that a wide range of sensible amendments is being batted back to us by the Government without being taken on board or even taken away for serious consideration. Although the Minister was very unkind about non-governmental organisations a day or two ago, they are united in their view that the provision on independent legal advice and representation should be in the Bill.

Mr Gwyn Prosser (Dover, Labour)

Is not the legal support at Oakington present there without any legal force and without statutory need? We have an induction centre in Dover that receives an enormous amount of support without anything appearing in any Bill.

Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)

There are many places where legal advice is present without its being in a Bill. Talking of the induction centre at Dover, following the announcement that it was up and running I rang the Home Office and asked whether I could visit it. The answer was that it did not quite exist as a place; it was a function. I asked whether I could visit it anyway, given that the Government said that it was up and running, only to be told that it could not be visited because it was not a place. The hon. Gentleman will know much more about his constituency than I do, but that is what I was told.

Mr Gwyn Prosser (Dover, Labour)

If the hon. Gentleman comes to Dover as soon as possible, I shall take him round the induction centre and the accommodation centre that supports it.Mr. Malins: The hon. Gentleman, who has a fine reputation for his work in the field, has offered me an invitation that I take up gladly. I hope that we shall enjoy a good and successful visit as soon as possible. [Interruption.] I hear next Tuesday being suggested; I cannot think of a better day to do it.

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

Take the whole Committee with you.

Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)

What a useful thing to do. I do not want to stray from the debate, but I say in all seriousness that we would do our jobs a lot better if we spent a bit less time jaw-jawing in Committee and more time on site seeing what is going on in the real world. According to my Whip, I have said enough. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 107, in page 12, line 25, at end insert

'or in connection with a claim for asylum'.

No. 108, in page 12, leave out line 30 and insert—

'() facilities relating to health;'.

No. 109, in page 12, line 31, at end insert—

'( ) anything which the Secretary of State thinks ought to be provided for the purpose of providing a resident with proper occupation and for the purpose of maintaining good order;'.—[Angela Eagle.]

Amendment proposed: No. 143, in page 12, line 33, at end insert—

'(j) independent legal advice and representation, funded by the Legal Services Commission or by the Secretary of State.'.—[Mr. Malins.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 11.

Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 146, in page 12, line 41, at end add—

'(4) The Secretary of State shall ensure the presence at accommodation centres of adjudicators to enable appeals to adjudicators to be heard at accommodation centres.'.

I shall speak briefly to the amendment, which deals with a matter of great importance to which we hope to return in due course. When I went to Oakington to discuss the process there with the powers that be, I learned that the initial decision was made in a day or so and was then communicated to the applicant. I learned that there was no adjudicator on site to hear an appeal. I thought then and think now that if one is trying to create a one-stop shop—a premises on which the whole process can take place efficiently, speedily and humanely—it is essential to have every relevant person on site.

To give a parallel from the field of criminal justice, often when an appeal is made against a magistrates court's decision, the court of appeal for the magistrates court—namely, the Crown Court—is in the same complex. That means that the appeal can be listed and heard at a much faster rate than would otherwise be possible.

What happens at Oakington and what lessons should we draw from it? Those who run Oakington told me that once the initial decision is made, a certain percentage are granted asylum straight away. However, those who are refused asylum will appeal. Within eight days of their arrival at Oakington a decision has to be made about them. Those in charge of Oakington think that a small percentage of people are at risk of absconding. Some of them are sent to what we shall call detention centres and are held in custody while their appeals are pending, but the vast majority are dispersed round the country pending the hearing of their appeals. I am sorry to say that a great percentage of that group go to ground and are never traced again. That is the reality.

Picture the scene for those who do not abscond. They leave Oakington and can go anywhere, to a number of dispersal areas. They are at the whim of their legal advice, which may or may not still be located at Oakington, although it probably is not. They might start taking legal advice in the area to which they go, but that might be 50 or 100 miles from the adjudicator's court that is to hear the appeal.

Those who run Oakington say that to make their system efficient and sensible, it would be in the interests of everybody concerned to have the adjudicator hear the appeal on site. The applicant makes his application for asylum and it is granted—terrific. He is given refugee status and goes into the community. If the applicant is refused, however, he appeals. The legal adviser on site then says, ''I am here to help you with the appeal.'' The appeal will be heard by the adjudicator and is listed for the following month. There is a directions hearing before the adjudicator, probably within a few days of the initial refusal. The adjudicator is literally around the corner, and the legal adviser is with the applicant at the accommodation centre. No force is involved, no one is locked in an accommodation centre, but everything is there.

The adjudicator could ask whether the appeal was ready for hearing, and the applicant's lawyer might say, ''No. We need to take more evidence.'' The adjudicator could say, ''Very well. We'll have a short adjournment to allow that to happen.'' He might be inclined to grant a reasonable period—no adjudicator can act unreasonably. The point is that if the adjudicator is on site, the speed that the Minister seeks is possible. Equally, if the adjudicator is tens or hundreds of miles away—the precise distance matters not—the link between the applicant and the appeal system is severed by distance, post and perhaps the difficulties of getting local legal advice in the adjudicator's area. How much more sensible it would be to have the adjudicator on site. How much more it would be in the interests of the applicant to have a proper one-stop shop.

Opposition Members believe that for the last two, three, four or even five years, the Government have been in charge of a system that simply has not worked, a system that is neither efficient nor sensible. We want to insert into the clause a requirement that the adjudicator—the appeal court from the initial determination—be on site to hear the appeal in specially designated courts with his or her own staff.

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

Unless the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that, in the appeal to the adjudicator, the asylum seeker be restricted in his or her choice of legal advice and representation to what is provided on site, the consequence of his proposal would be that scores of solicitors and other legal advisers would commute to accommodation centres to appear before the adjudicator. How would that lead to efficiency? Would additional costs to the public purse not outweigh any advantage of requiring adjudicators to be on site?

Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)

Advisers will surely commute long distances to the centres if, as the Government propose, the centres are in rural areas miles from anywhere. If

the Government listened to us, however, the centres would be much nearer to urban areas. In any case, the reality is that the legal advice given by the bodies at Oakington, for example, is of very high calibre. Their people are experts in the field and entirely independent. However, no one in an accommodation centre will be obliged to use such advice, because there will be freedom of movement.

If the centres were placed near towns and other urban areas—places that, to be blunt, the applicant would find much more congenial in terms of services provided—we would not have the problem to which the hon. Gentleman has alluded. The problem begins when the appeal of an appellant who is resident in a remote accommodation centre is heard miles away, perhaps as much as 100 miles away—who knows how far it might be? If the requirement that we suggest were not included in the Bill, the travelling to that venue that would be involved for the appellant would make the provision a nonsense.

Our proposal is a good idea. I do not know why the Minister is against it. Opposition Members feel strongly about this issue, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.

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

Asylum appeals adjudicators and hearing centres are the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor, but he has agreed in principle to co-locate adjudicator hearing centres with accommodation centres where that is sensible. It is important to ensure a good geographic spread of hearing centres that are accessible to all those who are appealing, because we are working with the dispersal system as well as the trials of accommodation centres. The Home Office will work with the Lord Chancellor's Department to achieve that. At least initially, we are likely to use existing centres, but ultimately we agree that co-location is desirable.

There may be one caveat: if a suitable hearing centre is within reasonable travelling time of an accommodation centre, it may not be sensible to move it completely to the accommodation centre. However, we are certainly interested in the efficiencies that can be gained by using the Oakington process in so far as it is relevant to non-detainees. We are also considering caseworker interviews being carried out in the centre at an earlier stage of the process and a range of similar measures.

We do not want an absolute requirement in the Bill that all hearings be co-located with the centre, but we are interested in considering what we can do to strip down the process and make it more efficient by having services visiting the accommodation centre, rather than individuals moving out to access services. The Bill does, however, create a power to pay travel expenses, at least in the interim, for individuals who may have to travel out. That is partly about trialling the system.

I can assure the hon. Member for Woking that we are extremely interested in the efficiencies that can be gained by the kind of approach that he outlined. The Lord Chancellor has agreed in principle that co-location of adjudicator hearing centres would be

sensible if we were to proceed with more accommodation centres. I hope that, with the exposure of that thinking, the hon. Gentleman will not press the amendment.

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

As the amendment was tabled by the hon. Member for Woking, I thought it right to let the Minister reply first and I am encouraged by her response. It seems a sensible idea and I understand the point of it. It may not be immediately practical everywhere, but it does seem sensible to move one person, even with one or two back-up staff, to a centre rather than move 250 to 750 people to one person. The logic must be in favour of that. If High Court judges move around the country, it must be logical that adjudicators do so. There is a real need to keep trying to ensure the streamlining of the process between initial decision, adjudicator and tribunal, where we have tribunal appeals, as well as the leave to appeal process.

To take up the point made by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, it seems to be an approach that could be regionalised in a way that would allow closer scrutiny. We have a national system, in terms of monitoring and performance with, to be honest, comparison between how places perform in different parts of the country. It seems worth considering Wales and each of the English regions separately as areas within which there should be one centre with the adjudicating staff. I am glad that the Government in their other plans from the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department, with the anticipated Bill for next year, are expecting to co-ordinate the court system. That is no good unless we co-ordinate the tribunal system as well, so people who do this job need to be within the same arrangements system as people who provide the other legal services. I look forward to further announcements in due course.

Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)

I am most grateful to the Minister, who answered in a very encouraging fashion and if there was any wind in my sails, which there was, she has removed it quickly with that response. To hear her say that the idea was attractive to the Government and one that they were pursuing leads me to say without equivocation that I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 25, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.