Clause 50 - Induction
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill
6:15 pm
Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 229, in page 27, line 16, leave out
'without regard to his personal circumstances'.
Mr Alan Hurst (Braintree, Labour)
With this we may take the following amendments:
No. 230, in page 27, line 18, leave out '14' and insert '7'.
No. 267, in page 27, line 19, leave out 'believes' and insert 'is satisfied that'.
No. 231, in page 27, line 21, after 'location', insert—
', which programme will include full access to legal advice and representation'.
No. 269, in page 27, line 27, leave out 'but disregarding section 16(1)(a)'.
No. 268, in page 27, line 32, after 'process', insert—
'and will include access to appropriate legal advice and representation at each stage of the programme'.
Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)
We now come to induction. It is important that people's medical problems are taken into account. The clause fetters the Secretary of State's discretion to make allowance for a person with medical or other unforeseeable problems, which could make a residence restriction inappropriate at a particular time, or at any time. In its present form, the clause does not allow the Home Secretary to have regard to personal circumstances. That is why I tabled amendment No. 229.
Amendment No. 230 raises an important issue of principle about how long asylum seekers will stay in an induction centre, which the Bill states should not be longer than 14 days. We all know that the first few days of an asylum seeker's application are the most important, which is why amendment No. 231 proposes that full legal advice should be available at the induction centre. If a person is to stay for at a centre for many days, it is important that all services are brought into play straight away. Good, quick legal
and medical assistance will usually save a lot of time in the long run and create a fairer situation.
I was interested to learn that asylum seekers may spend up to 14 days in an induction centre. I tabled a parliamentary question about that issue last Thursday, to which the Minister replied:
''Eventually all asylum seekers will pass through induction centres. Those seeking National Asylum Support Service accommodation will remain in the induction centre for approximately seven days; whereas those seeking NASS financial support only or no NASS support at all, will remain in the centre for approximately one day—this may, in some cases, involve an overnight stay.
It is envisaged those asylum seekers who are to be housed in accommodation centres in the future, will remain in the induction centre for around two days''.—[Official Report, 9 May 2002; Vol. 385, c. 325W.]
There we have it. An asylum seeker may spend various periods of time at an induction centre: one day, two days or seven days.
I also asked a question about the induction centre at Dover and received the answer:
''Applicants are housed on a full-board basis. Migrant Helpline and the National Asylum Support Service provide support services daily leading to dispersal within seven days of arrival.''—[Official Report, 9 May 2002; Vol. 385, c. 334W.]
Two parliamentary answers both say that seven days is the expected period for an asylum seeker to spend at a centre. That is why my amendment proposes that 14 days should be replaced by seven days. It is an important issue. If a person is to spend only a brief period at an induction centre, we should let that be publicly known, because there would be less need for essential services on site. The longer that a person spends at a centre, the more vital it is that those services are provided.
Amendment No. 231 would make legal advice and representation available at the induction centres, and that becomes all the more compelling if a person stays there for a longer period, by which I mean anything over a few days. The Minister will understand why the amendments would impose a maximum of seven days at an induction centre and, in addition, would require that legal advice is available. I anticipate that the hon. Lady will say that many people may stay at a centre for up to 14 days. In that case, legal advice and assistance on site will be extremely important.
Mr Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat)
Amendment No. 268 is similar to one of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Woking, and seeks to secure access to proper legal advice for asylum seekers. We believe that that would be of public benefit. Plenty of research evidence shows that claims by asylum seekers who have access at an early stage to proper legal advice from reputable agencies progress more swiftly and efficiently than people who go off into the system half-cocked and perhaps receive less appropriate advice later on.
A key target of the 1999 legislation was to ensure that advice services were the best possible. We want people in induction centres, where those services could be made available and controlled, to be introduced to the right legal advice so that their claims can be processed more effectively and efficiently.
Amendment No. 269 would exclude unaccompanied children from induction centres, but would not exclude the dependant children in a family, who may well be in an induction centre as a group. We want to clarify the appropriateness of the induction regime for unaccompanied children. We have concerns about whether it is appropriate, so we want to tease that out by referring back to the definition of an asylum seeker in clause 16 as anyone aged at least 18. We want to remove the exemption so that, in the context of induction centres, asylum seekers are deemed to be only those aged 18 and above. I hope that the Minister can reassure us on those points.
Ms Angela Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wallasey, Labour)
I hope that I can reassure hon. Members about the way in which the induction process will work. It is trying to establish a programme for all asylum seekers at the outset of their claim. They will be advised of their rights and responsibilities, and provided with an explanation of what will happen to them during and after consideration of their claim. Providing such information is the foundation of an effective asylum system, and will ensure that everyone knows where they stand and what the next stages are. We hope that the process can then operate more smoothly. Induction is not part of the decision-making process for asylum claims; they will not begin to be decided at induction centres.
On amendment No. 229, it is important that we have the power to require people to reside close to or in an induction centre, so that we can put them through the process that I have described without them having to travel long distances. The powers in clause 50 are reasonable, because of the short stay that induction is likely to involve.
The hon. Member for Woking was right to read out my replies to his parliamentary questions on induction. We do not envisage that large numbers of people will have to stay for 14 days; we are considering a target of people leaving within a week. We expect the stay of people who do not go for any form of NASS support or dispersal to be shorter—a day or two, or possibly an overnight stay. We certainly hope that the rest will go through the process within seven days, but our experience with the induction centre in Dover has shown that, in some circumstances, the stay will extend a little beyond seven days. The seven to 14-day period in the Bill is simply designed to create leeway, so that we do not have to remove people from induction centres who are right at the end of the process if it has lasted slightly longer than seven days. We do not intend people to be left in the centres for 14 days as a matter of policy, and we certainly hope that that will not happen.
Full legal advice has been mentioned under amendments Nos. 231 and 268. Again, induction is not part of the decision-making process and does not involve consideration of the merits of an asylum claim. Induction involves giving asylum seekers information about the overall process and their rights and responsibilities. We do not believe that legal advisers need to be present while such information is being provided, although information about legal advice will form part of the induction programme. Before a
person leaves, they will be given information about how they can access legal advice in the area where they will be living, if they are to be dispersed, or in an accommodation centre, if they are to go there.
People will be given a date for the interview on the substance of their asylum claim, which will normally be held two to three weeks from the date on which they leave the induction programme. All asylum seekers will, if they wish, have the opportunity to discuss their claim in advance of the interview, but we do not intend such interviews to be held at induction centres. We do not think that there is reason to have legal advice available. I hope that, after those clarifications, the hon. Gentlemen are reassured.
On amendment No. 269, it is not our view that unaccompanied children should be put into adult induction centres. However, we believe that unaccompanied asylum-seeking children should go through an induction process. We will arrange for that to be done separately, not in centres in which there are 200 to 400 people—that is the size we are thinking of—and which consist almost overwhelmingly, although not completely, of single men, as hon. Members know.
Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)
I am mildly reassured—not entirely, but sufficiently to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat)
I beg to move amendment No. 270, in page 27, line 36, leave out from 'shall' to 'House' in line 37 and insert—
'not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution in each'.
Mr Alan Hurst (Braintree, Labour)
With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 272, in clause 51, page 28, line 21, leave out from 'shall' to 'House' in line 22 and insert—
'not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution in each'.
Mr Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat)
These amendments will be familiar to any veteran of a Standing Committee. They seek to change regulations that can be annulled by negative resolution into ones that require affirmative resolution. It is an important matter of principle for Liberal Democrat Members that regulations that affect the liberty of a person—attendance at induction centres is compulsory—should have proper scrutiny by the House. We believe that that proper scrutiny requires affirmative resolution, which is widely acknowledged to be more comprehensive than negative resolution. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on these modest amendments, which would change the procedure so that we could better scrutinise the Government's regulations.
Ms Angela Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wallasey, Labour)
I suppose that the hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear a Minister say, in response to such an amendment, that negative resolutions are adequate. Funnily enough, I think that they are. They are appropriate for what the regulations cover. The Bill sets out the powers for imposing restrictions, and the regulations are confined
to setting out which dependants are to be subject to those powers.
Two factors will determine whether someone is to be treated as a dependant for the purposes of clauses 50 and 51. The first and polite question is whether a person wishes to be treated as a dependant—that is, whether they are seeking to enter or remain in the United Kingdom on the basis of their relationship with the principal applicant seeking asylum. If a family is not seeking to enter or remain on that basis, the person will not be seeking to stay as a dependant, and that will not come within the scope of the power in the clauses. We cannot impose any restrictions unless a person wishes to be treated as a dependant.
The second factor is whether we think that the person qualifies as a dependant. That issue has led us to adapt a regulation-making power, rather than define the term ''dependant'' in the Bill. There are a variety of circumstances in real life that could produce different kinds of dependants. We aim in the regulations to capture that variety, while retaining the core definition of spouse and minor children, which are not at issue.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will decide that negative resolution is employable. If he objects violently to the provisions, he should keep his eye open for them when they appear before the House.
Mr Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat)
I am grateful to the Minister for that tip-off to look out for the regulations. We will consider those issues again as we go through the Bill, and we will decide whether we think more such amendments are required. However, on this occasion, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 50 ordered to stand part of the Bill.