asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, following vesting on 31st March 1996, AEA Technology plc is now fully legally separated from the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. Her Majesty's Government plan to privatise the company later this year.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer, and start by wishing her a happy Europe Day. Is the noble Baroness aware that, although vesting day was on 31st March, the Government's intention of splitting the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and of privatising that part of the business which is now AEA Technology was mooted over two years ago? That uncertainty has now been hanging over the business for two years. Is not the noble Baroness aware that the kind of business undertaken by AEA Technology, which is technical research and the provision of scientific services, is very competitive and that that uncertainty is a competitive disadvantage to the company? Will the noble Baroness speed things up and give us a date on which something will happen?

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his good wishes. Although I could find better ways of spending Europe Day than in answering his Question, I shall nevertheless do my best. As I have already said, Her Majesty's Government plan to privatise AEA Technology plc later this year but, as the noble Lord said, no timescale has been formally announced. The Government will sell AEA Technology as soon as it is ready to be sold. The Government have consistently said that the decisions that they will take on the sale will be in the best interests of AEA Technology as a business, and in the best interests of its employees and the taxpayer. Those things take time, and the Government take the time that is necessary.

My Lords, does my noble friend recall that back in 1980 or 1981 the Government's first privatisation measure by law was to privatise another part of the Atomic Energy Authority; namely, Amersham International? That has grown and grown to be an extraordinary success within the private sector. Is there any reason why this part of the company should not do the same?

My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. I am happy to repeat that privatisation is in the best interests of companies and their employees.

My Lords, will the noble Baroness cast her mind back to what happened to INMOS when it was privatised some years ago? That company in the microchip industry was quickly flogged off to the French, who have exploited it ever since, much to our disadvantage. Although we were originally one of the leaders in the microchip industry, we now have to go abroad for that commodity. Can the noble Baroness give an undertaking that that will not happen in this case and that we shall not once again lose one of our industries of excellence?

My Lords, that has nothing to do with the Question. Furthermore, I am happy to say that that happened before my time.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that AEA Technology has taken great strides to improve its efficiency and that it is now an effective company which has responded enormously to the opportunities of the Bill that was recently passed? Does my noble friend further agree that it is important to keep that company as whole and effective as possible so that it can play the important role that it should play in the world marketplace?

My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. The vesting was a significant milestone in that company's history and plc status will give AEA Technology greater flexibility to respond to customer needs. Perhaps I may remind my noble friend that my noble and learned friend the Minister of State announced on 23rd October last year that the Government had no intention of breaking up AEA Technology in advance of the sale. He went on to say that the Government aimed to sell the business as a single whole. That remains the position.

My Lords, are the Government aware of the existence of over 40 technology clubs which are run by AEA Technology and which deal with groups of small businesses, teaching them about the technology to keep their businesses up to date? How will the Government ensure that that situation continues? In view of the Government's commitment to the wellbeing of smaller businesses, surely it is important not only that the uncertainty should be removed quickly, but that those clubs should continue.

My Lords, we have every confidence that the management of AEA Technology will deal with that matter. Whenever companies are privatised they always seem to do very much better in that respect.

My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the Joint European Torus at Culham will continue its research into nuclear fusion? Given that this is Europe Day, does she agree that that is a prime example of the United Kingdom leading Europe in atomic technology?

My Lords, I have to confess that I am not absolutely sure of the answer to that question. Perhaps it would be safer for me to write to my noble friend rather than stand here at the Dispatch Box and make what could only be a good guess.

My Lords, perhaps I may suggest a rather innovative approach to the drafting of the Bill which the noble Baroness has promised the House later this year. In view of the worry about standards in public life, would it be in order to include a clause in the Bill to state that any Member of your Lordships' House who votes in favour of the privatisation of that company should not be allowed to buy shares in it?

My Lords, that is rather an unusual suggestion. I am sure that the noble Lord would not expect me to respond to it.

My Lords, what would be the Government's view if the controlling shareholding should fall into foreign hands?

My Lords, as your Lordships know, the Government welcome foreign investment. The Government will consider in due course the need for safeguards against unwelcome purchases. It follows that the Government will consider the need for a special share, a golden share, and any other form of protection that is necessary in the light of decisions on the method of sale and discussions with the business's major partners.

My Lords, is the—

Next Question‡

I beg your pardon—

We have already had seven minutes on this Question.

I should have thought that I might as well ask a question and throw some light on the subject.

May I ask the noble Baroness what she meant by, "As soon as it is ready to be sold"? If the company is doing so well and has been set up as a separate plc, surely it is ready to be sold. Will the noble Baroness clarify another matter on which I got a little lost? Will legislation be required for this sale or is it one of those enterprises which can now be sold directly? I think that it is important for your Lordships to know the answer to that.

My Lords, no decisions have yet been taken on the method by which AEA Technology will be sold. The Government have said consistently that all options, including flotation, remain open. That remains the position. It is too early to say whether a flotation or a trade sale will offer a better return to the taxpayer and would be in the best interests of the customers, particularly government customers. That decision will be taken with regard to the performance of the business and the market circumstances. When they are ready to deal with it, it will be dealt with.

My Lords—

My Lords, I wonder whether the time has come for us to move on.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, we fully support UN Security Council Resolution 425, and other resolutions on this issue, including Resolution 1039 to which the noble Lord refers. We call for the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Lebanon, as envisaged in the Taif Agreement of 1989. We believe that the Middle East peace process provides the best chance for a lasting settlement in the region, and will continue to work actively in support of it.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his fairly reassuring reply. Can he confirm that the Government are telling the Israelis fairly sharply that by continuing to occupy this area they are promoting Hizbollah from the status of a terrorist organisation to that of a legitimate resistance movement?

My Lords, Her Majesty's Government support the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Lebanon. Our support over the years of Resolution 425 of 1978 has been unswerving, but the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon is part of the overall question of the Middle East peace process. The solution will come only from a comprehensive settlement. We greatly support the talks which will begin shortly between Syria and Israel and between Lebanon and Israel as the best way to achieve a lasting settlement.

My Lords, can the Minister say whether the Government support the resolution drafted by Lebanon under consideration in the Security Council today which demands compensation for Israel for the recent attacks? If not, why not?

My Lords, the question of compensation is a matter for the Secretary-General rather than the Government to determine.

My Lords, although I am sure that much valuable work has been done behind the scenes recently, from now on will Her Majesty's Government adopt a much more open profile, working closely with the French, to ensure that steps are taken to build on the ceasefire and bring about lasting peace? Will my noble friend bear in mind that both the French and the British have a long tradition in, and understanding of, the countries in the area and therefore have a special role to play? Is not the first and most important step that all countries concerned should recognise the integrity of one another's boundaries?

My Lords, that is exactly what Resolution 425 and succeeding resolutions are all about. We warmly welcome the ceasefire and hope that it is the start of a full and final solution. We totally supported, and were actively engaged in, activities behind the scenes, but we felt that it would not be useful to have a number of different approaches being made at the same time. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister met Minister Hariri and discussed Lebanon in Moscow with Presidents Clinton and Chirac. President Hrawi transited London and was seen by my right honourable friend Mr. Hanley. The Foreign Secretary spoke on the telephone to Messrs. Barak and Christopher and exchanged numerous messages with others. We have kept in close touch with the Israeli, Lebanese and Syrian governments and also with the Americans and our EU partners.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that Israel's only demand is that the Lebanese Government should take effective control of their southern region? Does he agree that this is particularly important in view of the fact that there are 40,000 Syrian troops in Lebanon?

My Lords, that is very much what we have been saying. We fully support the integrity of Lebanon, but the only way to achieve it is by discussion with Syria, Lebanon and the Israelis.

My Lords, I very much welcome the ceasefire. Does the Minister recall that it was necessary for the warring militias to be disarmed in and around Beirut? Do not similar considerations apply to southern Lebanon?

My Lords, this is part of a long lasting peace process. I do not believe that it can be exerted on its own without an extended process beyond that.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the only power which can exercise decisive influence in that part of the world is the United States, particularly since the origin of the problem is the weapons channelled from Tehran via Damascus to Hizbollah? Does he agree that only the United States is in a position to put an end to that traffic?

My Lords, possibly the greatest support we can give is in the form of international efforts to exert pressure on Iran and Syria to control Hizbollah and not provide it with arms or a route by which arms can be provided to it.

My Lords, can the Minister comment on remarks made by Sheik Ndurdin, a senior representative of Hizbollah, that Hizbollah would recognise Israel in exchange for the withdrawal of Israeli troops from southern Lebanon? Is that not a step forward which requires a positive response from the Israeli Government? Further, can the noble Lord inform the House whether or not the UK Government have been pursuing this either in the United Nations or with the US Government?

My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness that we are pursuing all possible avenues, particularly in the United Nations from which we believe the Middle East peace process will devolve.

My Lords, is it not well established by now that whenever the Israelis have occupied their neighbours' territory, whether in Syria, the West Bank or Lebanon, they have aroused intense hostility which has undermined rather than strengthened their security?

My Lords, that is an interpretation which the noble Lord may choose to make. However, it does not take us forward. We are trying to achieve a total and fulfilled peace process in the Middle East, and one that will last.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, it would not be right for me to comment on the judgment in the Blake case while an appeal is under consideration. However, I would refer the noble Lord to the following passage in the judgment:

"I would readily accept that former members of any of the security or intelligence services owe the Crown a lifelong duty not to disclose confidential information acquired by them in the course of their duties".

My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that in the judgment it is also said that no one is entitled to expect lifelong fidelity as to the matter of keeping secrets? Has he not also observed that Lord Justice Scott, who headed the arms for Iraq inquiry, denounced the Government for claiming that there were state secrets involved? Therefore, was he not an unwise choice to head this inquiry?

My Lords, I do not believe that the noble Lord is making an actual quotation from the judgment in Blake. The judgment runs to some 18 pages. I do not imagine that your Lordships will find it convenient if I read all of it out at this stage, but it is a public document which I believe will repay careful study. As far as concerns the choice of Sir Richard Scott to head up the inquiry, the noble Lord has his view of that; I am sure that there are also other views.

My Lords, since we have heard from my noble and learned friend that this matter is now sub judice in the Court of Appeal, would it not be best to close the discussion?

My Lords, the judgment has been given. An appeal is under consideration. Strictly technically I believe that the matter is not sub judice according to the rules of the House, but I accept the sense of what my noble and learned friend said, which is why I thought that it would be inappropriate for me to comment upon the terms of the judgment. While conforming to that precept, which I laid down for myself, I thought I could give what I believe to be an entirely accurate quotation from part of the judgment.

My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that taking six words from an 18-page judgment and trying to form a conclusion from them is almost as fallacious as taking six words from a columnist in The Times and extrapolating from that what is meant to be the policy of the paper as a whole?

My Lords, I am sure that there is some underlying connection between the latter part of that question and the Question on the Order Paper. I think, and I am sure that many would agree, that if one is going to get the sense of a judgment of 18 pages one probably has to read more than six words of it.

My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that I must declare an interest in asking this question as I appeared for Mr. Blake at his trial in a professional capacity and secured for him the longest term of imprisonment that has ever been handed down by a British court? From that somewhat equivocal position, may I ask the noble and learned Lord to confirm that on no occasion has the Crown sought to suppress this book or contended that any secret or confidential information was disclosed? Was not the trouble here the fact that the security services failed to take the elementary precaution of seeing that there was an undertaking in Mr. Blake's terms of employment not to disclose material without express permission? In those circumstances, did not the learned Vice-Chancellor decide the case, as learned judges still resolutely decide cases, according to law, without fear or favour, whether the defendant happens to be a spy, a journalist or even a Minister of the Crown?

My Lords, I am glad to notice that the noble Lord considers that Ministers of the Crown should enjoy justice. The first part of his question is extremely sweeping. I am not in a position to say precisely what happened at all stages, but it is true, as he said, that he represented Mr. Blake, as a result of which, but no doubt not in consequence of his representations, that very long sentence was passed. The reasons for the judgment are, as I say, expressed succinctly in 18 pages. It would be inappropriate for me to try to summarise them further.

My Lords, did Mr. Blake receive legal aid in order to help pay the fees of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson? If he did, is it possible to recover that money from the royalties of £90,000 which Mr. Blake will receive if that is allowed?

My Lords, the occasion upon which the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, represented Mr. Blake at his trial was some considerable time ago. I am unable to say whether the noble Lord was supported by the Legal Aid Fund at that stage. He nods, suggesting that he probably was. So far as concerns this case, Mr. Blake did not have legal aid. If he had had legal aid, the Legal Aid Fund could be reimbursed in so far as there was money being paid to Mr. Blake as a result of success in the action.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, following the Ofsted report on the teaching of reading in three London boroughs, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has announced a number of additional measures designed to identify and tackle poor teaching standards, and to monitor the performance of local authorities and teacher trainers.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but does he not share with me the grave anxiety felt, especially by parents, and the acute frustration felt by employers and the rest of us, that after years and years of highly welcome educational reforms at government level, so little has apparently percolated down to school level that we cannot even grapple with the problems of basic literacy? Is it not appalling that, in this report to which the Minister has referred, Mr. Woodhead found that four-fifths of children, after two years of education, did not get to where they ought to have got, and that one-fifth did not seem to get anywhere at all?

My Lords, the noble Lord is right to highlight the pretty damning evidence that comes from the report. He is right to point to the importance of some of the Government's reforms percolating down to the LEAs and the schools. I should like to emphasise and underline what he said, which underlines what Her Majesty's Chief Inspector said in his latest report and in his earlier report about the importance of adopting the right methods of teaching, laying particular stress with regard to reading on teaching by means of phonics. It was a distinct lack of the use of phonics in the 45 schools in those boroughs which created many of the problems that he has highlighted.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the serious problems would probably not have arisen had there been a strong professional organisation for teachers such as exists in other professions, and would the Government consider supporting the formation of such an organisation?

My Lords, I do not agree with my noble friend that that would be the simple solution to the problem. The simple solution is for teachers to adopt the right teaching methods. To ensure that that takes place it is important that the teacher training institutions address initial teacher training and ensure that teachers are taught in the appropriate methods and can teach by means of phonics. To that end my right honourable friend has asked the Teacher Training Agency to look at the methods that the initial training institutions are using and at further improvements in in-service training.

My Lords, if the Government really care about reading standards in primary schools, why has it taken 17 years for them to see what is going on under their very nose? Why did they withdraw support from the highly successful reading recovery scheme knowing full well that local authorities could not possibly pick up the bill? While he is at it, could the Minister kindly explain to me why the Ofsted report on Tower Hamlets, Islington and Southwark has still not been delivered from his department to the PPO in your Lordships' House? I should like to know where the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, obtained his copy.

My Lords, my apologies to the noble Lord for not being able to obtain a copy of the report. I shall see that he obtains a copy immediately after this debate even if it is only my own copy. I shall find another. Perhaps I may point out to him that we have done a considerable amount over the past 17 years. Much of what we have done has been opposed by the party opposite, particularly in terms of raising standards and improving inspection regimes. I point out also to the noble Lord—I do not like to bring party politics into this matter—that the report relates to 45 schools in three authorities in London. Those authorities are Islington, Southwark and Tower Hamlets, all of which are under Labour control, I believe, and have been for aeons.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the most valuable reforms has been the establishment of Ofsted, which took the place of HMI inspections which occurred only infrequently, if at all, in primary schools, and that the valuable information that we have received is a most important result of one of this Government's many educational reforms?

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her comments about the importance of the work of Ofsted. Some of the remarks which come from some of the friends of the party opposite accusing Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of political bias in his report are highly regrettable. That is merely trying to evade responsibility. These are matters that they should address in their authorities and we will seek to ensure that they do so.

My Lords, is the report in the Guardian that passages were deleted from the report before its publication substantially correct? If so, can any of us be asked to give the report any academic credence?

My Lords, the report is one by Ofsted, a body which is independent of the Government. It is for Ofsted to put together its report. Obviously, a report goes through a number of different drafting stages and the body concerned will produce its final report, as has been done. The noble Earl has suggested, as have his colleagues in the party opposite, that the report is politically biased. That is nonsense and nonsense in the extreme. Those authorities ought to be addressing the very serious problems that Her Majesty's Chief Inspector, Mr. Woodhead, has raised and seeking to improve standards in their schools.

My Lords, will the Minister agree that Her Majesty's Chief Inspector, Mr. Woodhead, said that, while he did not accept that class size mattered for most ages, it is a relevant factor for very young children? Will the Government accept responsibility for cutting during the past four years the funding available per capita for primary school children and the increase in class sizes? Will the Minister also accept that many members of his party buy such class sizes for their own children?

My Lords, obviously, class size is important but, as Her Majesty's Chief Inspector made clear, it is not the sole factor. The most important factor is the method of teaching employed in schools. I can assure the noble Baroness that funding in all three authorities that I mentioned is considerably higher than in other parts of the country. The noble Baroness's Leader in another place and the spokesman for health in another place have been sending their children to schools in Tory-controlled authorities and not to those in their own local education authorities.

My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Lucas will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer to a Private Notice Question in another place on the district auditor's report on Westminster City Council.

My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate the Education Act 1944 and certain other enactments relating to education, with amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commission. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate provisions of the Education (Schools) Act 1992 and Part V of the Education Act 1993, with amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commission. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 5, line 32, after ("include") insert ("such interests as the Schools may have in")

moved Amendments Nos. 2 and 3:

Page 6, line 16, after ("means") insert ("such interests in")

Page 6, line 17, after ("Act") insert ("as are transferred to the College under section 5 (Transfer of property, etc.) of this Act")

moved Amendments Nos. 4 and 5:

Page 11, line 18, leave out ("101653") and insert ("101683")

Page 11, leave out lines 43 to 45 and insert—

("(15) An interest in Phase 3 of Guy's Hospital Redevelopment")

moved Amendment No. 6:

Page 19, line 8, leave out ("101653") and insert ("101683")

My Lords, I beg to move that, the Bill do now pass.

Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer to a Private Notice Question that has been asked in another place about the auditor's report on Westminster City Council. The reply is as follows:

"Madam Speaker, the appointed auditor for Westminster City Council, Mr. John Magill, has today published his findings in relation to the objections to the accounts of Westminster City Council in the form of a public interest report, made under Section 15(3) of the Local Government Finance Act 1982. He has at the same time published a statement of reasons on which his decisions are based.

"This case is still subject to the due process of law. In these circumstances, it is appropriate for me to inform the House about the auditor's decisions, but not to comment on them.

"The auditor's decisions are that he has issued a certificate in the sum of £31,677,064 to each of Mr. Graham England, Mr. Peter Hartley, Mr. Paul Hayler, Mr. Bill Phillips, Dame Shirley Porter and Councillor David Weeks under Section 20 of the 1982 Act. They are jointly and severally liable for this amount. He has decided not to uphold the objections in respect of Councillor Judith Warner, Mr. Barry Legg MP and Mr. Robert Lewis.

"The auditor has now issued his certificate. Those surcharged have 28 days from the date they receive the auditor's statement of reasons to appeal against his decision to the High Court. I understand that they intend to do so.

"I have made it clear that I would condemn utterly any failure to meet the highest standards of propriety whenever it is found and whoever is found guilty.

"If the decisions in respect of Westminster are upheld by the courts I shall not hesitate to condemn those responsible, as in any similar case. But neither the Government nor this House nor I should pre-judge the findings of the courts".

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for repeating in the form of a Statement the response made to a Private Notice Question in another place. I agree with the Minister that Members on all sides of the House are anxious to preserve the highest standards of propriety in local government. Nevertheless, the district auditor's report confirms that Conservative councillors on Westminster City Council were guilty of unlawfully using £31.6 million of public funds for the benefit of the Conservative Party. They conspired to deny housing to homeless families and instead to sell council flats which fell empty to those who they assumed would he Conservative voters.

The scale of this is enormous. The loss to public funds is difficult to exaggerate: £31.6 million would buy more than 600 new homes or 10 new schools; it would pay the salaries of 1,200 extra teachers. No fewer than 272 councils in England have less to spend in one year on services for all the people in their area than the Westminster Conservatives squandered on this scheme.

This is probably the biggest single financial scandal in the history of local government. But it is a scandal not just about money. It shows how a Conservative council, with the support of massive subsidy from a Conservative Government, conspired to deny decent homes to homeless families; to treat homeless families harshly; and to drive them out of Westminster to be rehoused elsewhere. The report is not just an indictment of the Conservatives in Westminster; it is an indictment of the Tories in government. They will stoop to anything to win elections.

My Lords, first, I must apologise to the Minister because I missed the Statement. It came rather sooner than I expected but I heard it being made in the other place. I find the Statement predictable but no less disappointing for that. I feel that we are in great danger of allowing the quite proper process to obscure the real issues we should be examining. After many years of investigation, the district auditor has found proven a number of practices which, whether, in the end, found lawful or unlawful, nevertheless fall far below the standards we expect from all parties in local government. That is beyond question, whatever legal technicalities may arise.

The noble Lord, Lord Williams, describes it as probably the biggest scandal in local government. My noble friend Lady Seear whispered to me, "What about Lambeth?" Let us not argue about the scale of how had this is. We are talking about a magnitude of proven and deliberate wrongdoing in local government the like of which we have not seen before. We are not talking about obscure councillors but about leading councillors deliberately using their council for electoral purposes and for gerrymandering to the disadvantage of those least able to help themselves.

From time to time things happen in councils controlled by any of our parties of which we are not proud, although never on this scale. One of the true tests is how the party deals with such issues. Whatever may be the end of the legal process, I hope that the Minister will accept that many in this House and in local government will look to the Conservative Party to see how it deals with an issue where leading members of that party have fallen far short of the standards expected of them.

Finally, I wonder whether the Minister is aware that the district auditor in this case, John Magill, has recently been appointed district auditor to the council which I lead. In the light of that, I wish to conclude by asking the Minister for an assurance that the Government accept that Mr. Magill, my council's district auditor, is without question independent and a man of integrity and that we may accept his judgments because today the Government appear to be casting some doubt upon them.

My Lords, I am frankly astonished and greatly disappointed that the noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Tope, seem to presume the guilt of those people who are charged. That is frankly disgraceful. People in this country are innocent until proved guilty. They are yet to have their day in court. When that is concluded, we may comment upon their guilt or otherwise. To do so in the terms which noble Lords have used is disgraceful and a discredit to themselves and to this House.

As regards the question which the noble Lord, Lord Tope, asked, I shall certainly not question the integrity of the auditor or the accuracy of his report today. I shall not seek to interfere in any way with the proper process of law or to abuse parliamentary privilege. I am afraid that may rather restrict my answers to questions by Back Benchers but I am sure that the House will understand.

My Lords, as one who many years ago had the opportunity to make some criticisms of the administration of Westminster City Council, I should like to make a few comments on the observations which have fallen from the lips of the noble Lord. I believe, and my colleagues believe, that innocence should be presumed in the absence of satisfactory proof which may culminate in legal action. But the intimation of an intention to appeal does not make the matter sub judice. When the actual appeal is entered and process has begun, then and only then is the protection afforded to the accused.

I express astonishment—this time genuine and not synthetic—at the observations made by the noble Lord. When the affairs of Lambeth and other unfortunate Labour councils were subjected to exactly the same criticism, and public criticism, by auditors, I did not notice any reticence on the part of members of the Conservative Party either in this House or in another place. One thing of which I am sure—and, on reflection, I am sure the noble Lord will have some sympathy with this—is that no Member of this House in his heart of hearts wants anything other than justice to be done. I am hopeful that on reflection, when justice is done and seen to be done, retribution will be served on those who have perpetrated those crimes against society equal to the indignation felt by those on this side of the House.

My Lords, I am saddened that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, should have made those last remarks because up to that point I thought that he was being quite sensible and reasonable. A grave accusation has been made but as yet there is no proof in a court of law that there was a crime, let alone that anyone in particular committed it. That is the right principle under which we all live in this country; namely, that a man is innocent until proven guilty. In this case, it is not even proven that there was a crime. It is clear that we should all try to hold to that principle.

In relation to the other remarks made by the noble Lord, I understand that the matter is not yet sub judice but that does not alter my opinion about how we should conduct ourselves. As regards other councils and misdemeanours, I hope that we have always been restrained in our opinions and remarks until matters are decided in a court of law.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. It is obviously a difficult situation for him to be in and he has my sympathy. I must declare an interest as a resident of Westminster. Therefore, I shall not ask the question about the district auditor's surcharge because, as an interested party, it would obviously be improper for me to comment. But I do have a technical question for the Minister regarding the fact that the findings of the district auditor suggest that poor people who became homeless within Westminster and who had a right to be rehoused and carry on living there were denied that right. Does the Minister know whether those people who were refused the right to live in Westminster have any redress for their individual grievances?

My Lords, the noble Lord trespasses a little on the principle that we should presume innocence. However, it is quite clear that that accusation is made. No, I do not know what individual remedy these people would have if indeed the district auditor's accusations were correct, but I shall write to the noble Lord on the matter. I should say that the noble Lord is extremely lucky to live in Westminster; indeed, it is one of the best run councils in the country. He has my congratulations.

My Lords, I am sorry to trespass on Back-Bench time, but very little time has so far been taken on the matter. Perhaps I may try to lay one particular canard to rest. As I understand it, the procedure whereby district auditors investigate the affairs of local authorities is laid down in the provisions of an Act passed in 1982 when, if my memory serves me correctly, a Conservative Government were in power. The purposes of such investigations are to ascertain whether or not public money has been spent properly. The district auditor will, prima facie, investigate the matter—and may, as in this case, take a long time in doing so—and will eventually bring forward his conclusions. Under the 1982 Act that is, in effect, an alternative to judicial investigation. That is the point that the Minister has not grasped.

The legislation also provides for some form of judicial appeal from the decision of the district auditor—I emphasise the word "appeal"—but not a trial at first instance. Therefore, what we have before us and what we are considering today is not just an allegation which is being made against these people; what we have is a conclusion from the district auditor reached in accordance with the provisions of the 1982 Act passed by a Conservative Administration. To hear the noble Lord opposite tell us that that is similar to an indictment in a criminal trial is, frankly, nonsense.

My Lords, the noble Lord's memory and imagination serve him well in all but one respect. We have always, I hope, followed the principle that when the district auditor comes out with his conclusions that is not the proof of guilt: the proof of guilt, if it is taken to appeal, is the decision by the court. So far as I know, we have not trespassed on that principle in the many other cases that have occurred under those provisions.

My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that, from the very moment that the investigation started, the provisions of the 1982 Act mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, were flagrantly abused by the district auditor? I shall justify that statement. Is my noble friend also aware that the 1982 Act required that a report of a district auditor should not be published without the consent of those named in it? Is my noble friend further aware that the first report was published with the maximum of publicity, and a very highly publicised press conference by the district auditor, with no such consent and that when he was challenged as to why he had failed to observe the law, the district auditor said that it was not his report and that it was merely a draft report that he was minded to make?

Is there not some suggestion that the district auditor somehow got himself hooked on this very early on when he made such public statements? Surely that must cast some doubt as to whether his report is indeed as valid as the party opposite seems to think. The law was not obeyed in the first instance.

My Lords, neither I nor the Government will question the integrity of the district auditor, his actions or the accuracy of his report. If we wish to review this particular incident, we shall do so when the process has reached its end; and not before.

My Lords, will the Minister invite his noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding to repeat the points that he has made outside the Chamber—that is, outside parliamentary privilege—so that the district auditor himself can take account of them?

My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, should be careful of repeating what he said outside the House.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blotch.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

Before calling the first amendment, I must inform Members of the Committee that if Amendment No. 97 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 99 or 100.

moved Amendment No. 97:

Page 6, line 40, leave out subsection (1).

Before I say anything else I wish to thank the noble Baroness for the concession she made on the use of the word "immigrant" in the Bill. That is a welcome concession, but to understand the significance of this clause we shall have to wait to see exactly what form of words is to be put in its place. That, I understand, we may hope to discover at the Report stage.

The next point that concerns me, if I want to discover who exactly will be covered by this exclusion from housing waiting lists, is the phrase to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, has referred; namely, someone,

"who is of a class specified in an order made by the Secretary of State".

It is a little like the famous example of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, of the company promoted during the South Sea Bubble, for a purpose hereafter to be disclosed. It is of course also true that we do not know what will happen in the way of future Secretaries of State. We do not know how long this clause will be on the statute book, if indeed it gets there. Whatever the intentions of the present Secretary of State, we have to take into account that we are creating the vires to do something which may be far-reaching and which may affect people who pay tax and national insurance and work here and have been here a pretty long time.

I am sure that the Minister will have a great deal to say about the interests of the taxpayer. Before she does so, I remind her that I am a taxpayer myself. However, one should take into account the interests of actual taxpayers who may suffer under this clause.

We need to think also about the difficulty of turning local authorities into immigration officers. We have been over all this ground in the debate on the British Airways amendment as regards Clause 5, and in the debate on Clause 8. It does not make the points any less true that we have said them before. We have already had reports in the Department of the Environment's research on the application of the code of guidance, published quite recently, that the immigration checks required of local authorities under the 1993 Act are putting a pretty significant burden on local authorities. I do not think that we all appreciate quite how desperate the burdens on local authorities now are, nor how much worse they will be made by the Bill. The Minister, I am sure, in her reply will make reference to illegal entry. But that is entirely redundant because under a 1993 judgment, those who enter illegally, or who have overstayed their leave, are not entitled to any local authority housing under the existing law. The Minister looks puzzled. The 1993 judgment to which I refer is The Secretary of State v. Tower Hamlets. The new effect of the clause will only be in respect of those who have a perfectly legal right to be here, some of whom may be living here for the remainder of their lives.

In exercising the duty to conduct immigration checks, local authorities are under conflicting pressures. On the one hand, they must not infringe the clause. On the other, they have a duty under the Race Relations Act 1976 to promote harmonious relations between the communities in their local authority area. So either they must have a series of checks which are so officious that they cause considerable resentment, or they have to risk discriminating against specific racial groups, and putting themselves in danger of the lot. They are, if I may so put it, "damned if they do and damned if they don't". It is a burden from which I believe they will have some difficulty finding their way out.

I wish to cite a case about which I wrote to the Minister yesterday. It bears on Clause 8 rather than Clause 9, but the principle is the same. On Monday, I stood at a bus stop and looked at the window of my local Jobcentre. I observed an advertisement for waiters or waitresses, all of whom of any nationality were being required to produce ID and passports. Not every British subject possesses a British passport. It costs £20 to obtain one and not everyone on income support can afford £20 to get a passport. Shall we have a burden like that—proving your immigration status—under Clause 9? The noble Baroness shakes her head; I am glad to see that she does. However, if that shake is to be compelling, she must tell me exactly what local authorities are supposed to do to check immigration status under this clause. That would make the answer compelling; and I would find that interesting.

We are told that one of the reasons for the clause is to make seeking asylum in this country less attractive. I am not sure that seeking asylum is ever a particularly attractive prospect. Neither am I sure that the details of local authority housing eligibility in Brent are necessarily common knowledge in the back streets of Jaffna or in East Timor. I am not quite certain whether the proceedings of our House really receive that much attention. We risk flattering ourselves.

I also believe that we risk severely exaggerating the attractiveness of our welfare system. I once said that the Department of Social Security regards itself as a honey pot surrounded by benefit-seeking wasps. That attitude now seems to be spreading into the Home Office and indeed, as appears from this clause, into the Department of the Environment. The level of our welfare benefits is one of the lowest in the European Union. If people are being attracted to claim asylum by the generosity of the benefits and the social protection that they receive, they will be drawn to Norway, Sweden, France, Belgium and even Ireland long before they are drawn to this country. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, shakes his head. I shall look forward with a great deal of interest to hearing his reasons for saying that I am wrong.

Moreover, a great many such people were much better off in the countries from where they came than they are ever likely to be now. Some noble Lords may remember the evidence from Turkish doctors to which we listened in the debate on torture before the Division as regards Clause 1. Two of those doctors will go on trial in Turkey next Friday on the charge of running an illegal medical centre. Running an illegal medical centre means that they did not tell the security forces all about the medical details of the victims of torture whom they were treating—so they were being required to commit a breach of medical confidentiality. When those doctors escape ultimately from prison, as I hope they will do in due course, should they apply for asylum in this country I do not believe that they will be drawn to give up the life of a doctor in Turkey by the prospect of accommodation in the Chalk Hill estate in the London Borough of Brent. It really defies belief.

We need to remember that many of these people may be in this country for the rest of their natural lives. They may eventually become British. It is the way that many of our ancestors arrived here and the way that I hope many people will continue to arrive in future. It does not mean that they come to this country with the idea that it is a particularly generous place. Bearing in mind that all the English are immigrants within the British Isles, and that there is a great deal of feeling now about what happens to Englishmen with second homes in Wales, the Committee may understand what I am getting at when I say that this clause sounds as though it has been drafted by Meibion Glyndwr.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, made an important point when he told us that illegal arrivals and over-stayers in this country do not have a right to local authority housing. We should all be grateful to him for that.

I am sorry to say that I am driven to the conclusion that Her Majesty's Government have become completely hostile both to asylum seekers and to a variety of classes of immigrant. First, they will not allow such people to take work even if it were available to them during the first six months of their stay. Secondly, they deprive them of social security benefits. In this clause they now seek to deprive them of all access to local authority housing.

What are likely to be the consequences of these measures? It seems to me that there will be destitution, despair and suicide; and there is already some evidence for that in recent events. For example, an asylum seeker tried to throw himself into the Thames from, I believe, Tower Bridge.

The consequences in the case of asylum seekers and immigrants with children will be the breaking up of families and the taking into care of children. I support the amendments.

Perhaps I may start by reminding the Committee what council housing and housing association housing is for. It is a valuable asset. It is there for people who are here on a long-term basis, including people who have been here all their lives, and their fathers, grandfathers and so on before them. It is for their use and, if they are allocated such a house, it gives them a tenancy of a house gained for life. The person who gains tenancy can stay there for as long as he wants. He also acquires succession rights whereby he can pass the tenancy on to a close relative, and certain rights of assignment. He can exchange the property with another tenant elsewhere; and, thanks to this Government's legislation, he can acquire the right to buy that property.

So the Government are concerned that such housing should go to those with clearly established long-term needs—people who have the right to remain in this country indefinitely. I was slightly puzzled by what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said. He seemed to cast doubts on the last point that I made: that people who have a right to remain in this country indefinitely will be entitled to apply for and receive local authority housing and housing association housing. For example, people who have been granted asylum, who have exceptional leave to remain or who have leave to remain on a long-term basis will not be affected by the proposals before the Committee this afternoon. The classes of immigrants whom we propose to exclude from council housing are listed in the papers before the Committee. We state clearly—

I am grateful to the Minister for the assurance about people with exceptional leave to remain. However, am I correct that the vires permit subsequent Secretaries of State to disentitle those people under future regulations?

I am used to the noble Earl showing extreme suspicion of future Secretaries of State. It is the normal line of argument that he takes whenever secondary legislation is considered. However, the issue is more complicated than he usually suggests. As he knows, governments cannot just use secondary legislation for any old thing. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments is careful in ensuring that it is used in the way set out in the original legislation. In addition, people can look back at what Ministers said and are saying as regards the groups we have in mind for the regulation. I quote from the Background Notes by the Home Office:

"The main categories excluded from council housing would therefore be…illegal entrants".

I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, asks us to believe that illegal entrants ought to have the right to be considered for council housing, the long-term tenancies which I mentioned at the beginning of my speech. The document continues:

"overstayers and persons given temporary admission; asylum seekers; visitors, students and all others given limited leave on the basis that they could support and accommodate themselves without recourse to public funds".

Those are the classes of immigrant whom we propose to exclude from council housing. They are all generally here for a limited period only and if they have a need for housing it can only be on a temporary basis. We believe that that can properly be met in the private rented sector and not by them becoming long-term council tenants.

Most of the groups whom we propose to exclude from entitlement to social housing are already excluded from other forms of social assistance. There is no reason they should be entitled to housing created with public assistance, particularly when there are people with settled residence seeking such housing. That applies equally to immigrants here on limited leave and asylum seekers. I remind the Committee, from speeches I have made on the subject before, that only a tiny proportion of asylum seekers—less than 8 per cent.—are granted full refugee status. Double that number are granted exceptional leave to remain. However, I underline the point that, if those two groups are granted leave to remain, they then acquire the same rights to council housing as people with settled residence. If I heard him correctly, I fear that that is something which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, did not appreciate. I hope that I have been able to reassure him on the point.

We do not have a comprehensive picture of the distribution of people with limited leave across the country, but if we look at the most visible subset—asylum seekers—we find that the vast majority, probably 90 per cent., are in the London area. That is precisely the part of the country where housing pressures are greatest and waiting times for council housing longest. For established residents to see temporary immigrants—people who are here for only a short time and who have not been given asylum or exceptional leave to remain—being allocated permanent social housing is not fair.

We spend a great deal of money on housing. The Government have this year invested about £2 billion in the creation of new housing and the improvement of existing stock. The expenditure should go to help the housing position of the established population. That includes people from abroad who come here and have leave to remain. But it should not include those who do not have leave to remain in the longer term. That is the important point.

The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, drew the Committee's attention to the forthcoming Housing Bill and asked how this Bill's provisions relate to it. First, it is naturally an immigration issue rather than a housing issue. Secondly, the Housing Bill extends only to England and Wales, but we wish these provisions to operate on a UK-wide basis. Thirdly, we wish the provisions to take effect as soon as possible after Royal Assent in order to relieve the burden on local authorities following the change to housing benefit entitlement which came into force on 5th February. We expect that the Bill will reach the statute book earlier than the Housing Bill. Moreover, all the Housing Bill's homelessness provisions will need to be commenced together, which may take a few months longer than the Royal Assent to the Housing Bill. Also, the corresponding powers in the Housing Bill, which will he found in Clause 144 on housing allocations and Clause 165 on homelessness, are cast in broader terms. That is because we wish to use the powers to catch European Union benefit tourists as well as people who require leave under the Immigration Act 1971. The two different provisions will achieve the same effect. They will not involve two rounds of implementation. We shall issue guidance on implementation of the Asylum and Immigration Bill which will in most respects be valid when the Housing Bill comes into force.

I turn to the problem raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on how local authorities screen. Anyone who knows local authorities realises that when councils accept someone on the council list, questions have to be asked. Applicants must be asked where they have lived for the past five years and other questions in order, if a points system is operated, to ascertain how many points a person may be able to accumulate. So local authorities must ask questions. That already happens and the Department of the Environment issued a revised homelessness—

Is the Minister aware that a number of people have been asylum seekers for more than five years and their claims are still not determined?

I am not sure about the figure for those who have been here that long looking for asylum. I suggest that part of the reason their claims have not been determined is that they have managed to spin out the procedure, for example, by asking for adjournments and the like during the appeals procedure. In any case, on the more general point, the noble Earl underlines the argument that I have put before the Committee on other occasions. It is that if we try to reduce the number of people coming here looking for asylum with no justifiable reason, we will be able to treat genuine asylum seekers much more quickly and better than at the moment.

I turn now to the Department of the Environment's revised homelessness code of guidance for local authorities. In 1994 it was drawn up in consultation with the Commission for Racial Equality. It contains advice on the subject, and we have every reason to believe that the procedure works well and has not given rise to complaints.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked why people should come here when our benefits system is not all that good. He may recall what I said when we debated the general proposition of excluding asylum seekers who do not seek asylum at the port of entry from our benefits system. I explained what other countries do against the background that, until the Government's changes, someone seeking asylum here had immediate eligibility for benefit and sometimes had had that eligibility for a long time while they went through the first decision process, the appeal process and the tribunal process. All that could be spun out to some extent. In Belgium and France the benefit stops after a year. In Denmark, France, the Netherlands and Spain asylum seekers are not allowed to work, whereas after six months in Britain they are allowed to work. As the noble Earl knows, the rest of Europe has tightened up procedures and we have seen their figures for asylum seekers decrease while ours have increased considerably.

For all those reasons, this seems to me to be a fair and equitable way to proceed. People who come from abroad and have a settled right to live here should, along with the natives—if I may call them that—of this country, have the right to seek council housing. I do not think that those who are here with limited leave to remain, or whose leave to remain is still questioned because they are asylum seekers and no decision has yet been taken, should have access to long-term council housing. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment. If he does not withdraw it, I trust that my noble friends will support me in the Division Lobby.

The Minister concludes where he started with an entirely specious argument about the long-term benefits of council housing. He rightly referred to the fact that people in council housing in this country have the right to stay there, have certain rights of nomination and succession, and certain rights to buy in certain circumstances. I hope that he is not suggesting that those rights, which have existed ever since public housing started in this country, are now at risk and that the Government think they are matters that could possibly be changed.

The suggestion he makes by his repeated reference to the phrase "long-term" is that, somehow, the rights of those in public housing are superior to the right to remain in this country. He appears to suggest that the long-term rights somebody has because he is in a council house are somehow more important than his right to remain in this country, and if he loses his right to remain in this country those rights would then disappear. That is clearly not the case and is not suggested in the amendment.

There may be confusion here; perhaps I intervened a phrase too soon in the noble Lord's remarks. I make it clear that anyone with a settled right to remain here, from wherever in the world that person comes, has the right, along with any other British citizen, to apply for and receive a council house. It is people who do not yet have any settled right to remain here who we believe should not be eligible for council housing.

At this stage of my speech, as the Minister said, all I have referred to is the quite specious use of the word "long-term" as applied to the rights of those in public housing. Clearly, there are no rights that are longer term than the right to remain in this country.

I turn to the separate issue of what is meant by the Bill and to whom the clause applies. The Minister has now given me, in terms, the assurance for which I asked; namely, that those who have the right to enter, or remain in, this country are not covered by the clause. He will recall that we debated earlier in Committee the extraordinary approach of the Government which means that Clause 12 contains a very wide definition of "immigrant". It includes those who have the right to enter or remain. The definition is half restricted in earlier clauses by the statement that the Secretary of State may by order restrict that right. I believe in the sincerity of the Minister's assurance that that is the Government's intention at the present time. However, that is not a protection against future Secretaries of State changing the provisions under Clause 9 and using the protection given to the Secretary of State by the definition in Clause 12. So we object as strongly as we did before to the process of having a wide definition in statute constrained only by ministerial statements about what will subsequently be contained in orders.

The Minister referred to the potentiality for conflict between the Housing Bill and the Asylum and Immigration Bill. He gave references to Clauses 144 and 165—although, I notice, not to Clauses 160 and 161—of the Housing Bill. He rightly pointed out that the Housing Bill refers only to England and Wales, and that there are other real differences.

The wording of the Housing Bill is entirely different from the wording in this Bill. It is very difficult for those working in local authorities to know to which they should pay attention. The Housing Bill refers to a person from abroad who is ineligible for social assistance. It refers to an asylum seeker or dependant of an asylum seeker if he has any accommodation in the United Kingdom, however temporary. These are words in housing legislation, and the Minister claims that the present Bill is not housing but immigration legislation.

We are entering the realms of absurdity. The Government must make up their mind what it is that they want to enact and must decide to put forward a coherent and consistent view before Parliament in one piece of legislation. It must not rely on ministerial explanation from any Front Bench, however conscientious and sincere, to tell us which piece of legislation should be prepared for by local authorities. I am not satisfied with the argument of the Minister that it depends on which piece of legislation is enacted first. It is up to the Government to get their legislation through in the order they think fit. It is not up to us to try to support it; and it is certainly not up to local authorities to prepare for any possible deficiencies in the Government's business management.

The Minister referred to the requirements on housing departments'to obtain information from applicants about where they have lived for the past five years. When it was pointed out to him by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that some asylum seekers had been in the queue for more than five years, he responded as though it were entirely their fault. In practice, people who applied for asylum before 1993 and who are on the waiting list have been kept in the backlog precisely by the timetable imposed by the 1993 Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act, which has given priority to subsequent applications. That is why some people have been in the queue for more than five years and why they would not necessarily appear to local authorities as asylum seekers.

I said that I should not be satisfied with the assurance as to what the Government mean to do with this legislation. We have to deal with the legislation as it is presented to us. As it is presented, it is both unfair and incompetent. I ask the opinion of the Committee on Amendment No. 97.

moved Amendment No. 100:

Page 6, line 43, at end insert ("and whose status has been notified to the housing authority by the Secretary of State").

This amendment is designed as a solution to the problem I raised on the previous amendment: how a local authority is expected to know whether the person concerned is of the class specified by the Secretary of State. I noticed that the noble Baroness shook her head when I said that it would create a burdensome procedure. I invited her to explain how else it should be done. She resisted that invitation. But if the Ministers are to resist this amendment, they will have to answer that question now.

As was explained, the intention behind these amendments is to require the local authority to apply the housing provisions of the Bill only to those cases where the immigration status of the applicant has been notified to the authority by the Secretary of State, which means in practice by the Home Office Immigration and Nationality Department. I understand the arguments put forward, but do not believe that they provide a realistic solution.

We do not generally require immigrants here on limited leave to live in a particular area, nor do we tail them from place to place. They are free to come and go in just the same way as any British citizen. So there is no practical way that the immigration department could know that a particular immigrant was applying to a given authority for housing or assistance under the homelessness legislation.

The only way in which the immigration department could ensure that housing authorities are aware of the immigration status of anyone approaching them would be for the department to send details of all immigrants falling within a class specified by an order under this clause. Given the very large numbers of people who visit this country each year, the vast majority of whom are entirely self-supporting and not interested in seeking social housing, it would be an impossible task for the department to send out such details to around 400 housing authorities throughout the United Kingdom, for authorities to monitor them and for that list to be kept up-to-date.

We are aware of—and respect—the concerns that a number of authorities and welfare organisations have about the screening of applicants for housing for immigration status and its possible effects on race relations. Indeed, the noble Lord raised this issue and I answered him briefly during the last debate. But that concern can be overstated. In December 1994 the Department of the Environment issued a revised third edition of its Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities, which contained advice on how to screen persons making an application under the homelessness legislation for illegal entrants (who have no entitlement under the homelessness legislation), and for asylum seekers (who have a more limited entitlement). The guidance was prepared in consultation with housing practitioners and the Commission for Racial Equality, and has, we understand, been well received.

The Department of the Environment will build on that experience by issuing revised guidance on how to screen for people without an entitlement to housing when this legislation commences. That will cover both people seeking assistance under the homelessness legislation and those seeking council housing through the waiting list. It will also cover the procedures to be adopted in liaising with the immigration department to establish immigration status.

The Government are sensitive to the concerns expressed about intrusive inquiries and good race relations. But the only practical way of implementing this legislation is through the screening processes of the housing authorities, through which everybody who applies for council housing has to go. We will ensure that procedures are in place to that end before this part of the Bill is enacted.

I hope, with that assurance of how we propose to proceed and a remembrance of the guidance already issued to local authorities, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will be able to withdraw the amendment.

The Minister gave us a considered answer. He may possibly be right that this procedure will not work. But it is not incumbent on those of us on this side of the Chamber to put forward a procedure that will work. We do not want this clause working at all. However, it is incumbent on the Minister to put forward something that will work. He has not convinced us that the screening process can work without great labour and a risk of discrimination. Those answers are not enough. I hoped that he could say a little more about how the screening process would be used. I fear we are disappointed.

Though I listened carefully to what the Minister said and he knows that this was only a probing amendment concerning an administrative issue rather than an issue of principle, I was a little taken aback by one of his objections to the amendment.

The Minister said that asylum seekers are free to live anywhere they like and that they are not tracked from place to place. I understood the position to be that aliens settled in this country are required to register with the police in the areas where they settle and to notify any changes of address using the green card system. That appears to be in conflict with what the Minister said. I understand that in London aliens register with the Aliens Registration Office. Is it not easier, therefore, to keep track of aliens settled in this country than the Minister suggested in his original answer?

Without going into detail, the point is this. Many people come to this country for a limited time and are allowed in by the immigration authorities—people from all parts of the world with every intention of going back. They create a formidable list of people. To send that list to every local authority would be impossible. It would be difficult to keep track of such people, although one could send a list to the local authority in which they are believed to be living on the offchance that they may apply for council housing.

I understand what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is saying. However, it is far better to provide a sensible screening process for local authorities who are used to dealing with these matters rather than, dare I say, implementing the impossible system suggested by the noble Lord.

I do not think the Minister can brush away the problems I have raised by calling them details. I was responding to the precise statement that he made about the inability of the Home Office to track aliens living in this country. My understanding is that it is possible to track aliens living in this country. I think that the Minister's original answer was, of course unintentionally, misleading. I do not think it is wrong for me to press the matter when the noble Lord has responded to the problems I have raised as if they were details.

Of course there are difficulties in what is being proposed here. I am not suggesting otherwise and I was not proposing to press the amendment to a Division. But I wonder whether the Minister would not feel able to think about this matter a little more constructively than he has done so far. If it is not possible for the original notification to be made by the Home Office to all local authorities—I understand the difficulties—is it not possible for the Home Office to have a register that is available on request to local authorities which seek to use it? I can see that there could be civil liberties difficulties about that as well. But if the Minister is to approach the matter constructively, he ought to consider alternative ways of achieving the same objective as he appears to accept that local authorities will have legitimate concerns in dealing with these applications.

I accept the concerns that the noble Lord has raised but I have outlined the way to deal with them which has been in use since 1994 in certain cases where local authorities use the homelessness code of guidance. We have no indication that that has not worked in a perfectly reasonable and humane manner. I indicated that many people come to this country as visitors and so on. We are talking about more than 6 million people every year. It would be impossible to track them as it would be to send a list of more than 6 million names to every local authority in the country. Local authorities would be the first to complain if they had to monitor 6 million names to see whether someone who had applied for one of the council houses or had come to them under homelessness legislation was one of them. Even the power of the modern computer would still find that a fairly time-consuming operation.

I am beginning to suspect, reluctantly, that the Minister is not treating this amendment seriously. He cannot be serious in suggesting that the amendment deals with 6 million people. There are 6 million visitors to this country each year but we are talking here only about people who are aliens settled in this country. It is a very much smaller number of people. The figure of 6 million is simply a diversionary tactic.

I should like to think about what the Minister has said. I do not think he has been as helpful or constructive as he should be and I do not think he has been as receptive to the real concerns of local authority housing departments. Perhaps they should be expressed to the Home Office more clearly than they have been, in which case we can see to it that that is done. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 100A:

Page 6, line 43, at end insert—

("(1A) This section shall not apply to students from overseas who have leave to enter for a limited period and who comply with their conditions of entry.").

I wish to support the amendment and add my name to the thanks to Mr. David Curry for meeting us this morning. I must also declare an interest as chairman of court of the University of Strathclyde.

This clause, in aiming to prevent access to local authority housing to oversees students, will have a very serious effect. My university rents 290 flats in and around Glasgow from local authorities. This is not a cost to the taxpayer. Generally, the flats are in poor condition, in poor areas and are often empty. They are flats people do not want. The university pays to improve them. They are then occupied by overseas students and often their families. When the university vacates them they revert to the local authority, and in better condition than we got them.

Unfortunately, there are not sufficient private rented flats at prices students can afford. If access to council flats is denied, many overseas students will not be able to come to universities in Britain, with considerable consequent damage to the economy of the universities and of the country, to say nothing of the loss to research. I hope that my noble friend the Minister may be able to accept the amendment or produce a similar one at Report stage.

I wish to support the amendment. I was present yesterday and I heard the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, from the Government Front Bench commenting on the fact that there are 100,000 overseas students in this country. We have heard that each overseas student brings in around £10,000, which makes £1 billion, which I presume was how the noble Earl, Lord Russell, came to the figure of £1 billion. It seems to me that we are doing ourselves harm here. Overseas students in British universities are good for British students. They enlarge their horizons and they change their outlooks in a significant way, even though it is not a matter which is within the curriculum. More important than that, many of those overseas students return home and go on to have distinguished careers.

I have just come back from my almost annual visit to Singapore. Perhaps I may tell the Committee about Singapore's two major universities, which I had a hand in establishing some years ago. The chief executive of the National University of Singapore is a medical man who was trained in this country at Cambridge. The same is true of Nanyang Technological University. It is headed by an engineer who was trained at Cambridge. The man who runs that great endeavour, Jurong Town Development Corporation, was also head of that country's defence forces and was a student at Sheffield where he had a distinguished record in engineering. One cannot omit the senior minister, who is still a man of very great influence and power, Lee Kuan Yew. He received his education in this country and has never failed to acknowledge the debt that he owes to us in that respect.

We would be cutting off our nose to spite our face if we were to impose any impediment which made it impossible for able students from abroad to come to this country. They are now all self-financing and are not a charge on the taxpayer in this country. They often have different accommodation needs from our own students. Having left their own country, often many miles away, they do not return in the vacations and need to occupy accommodation for much longer periods of the year than home students. In addition, they are often older and married, sometimes with children. It is for that reason that many universities in this country have seen them as having a special problem for which they wish to cater by whatever means they can.

The rise in student numbers in this country over recent years has been so great that the universities have looked everywhere within their means to be able to provide accommodation for those much-valued students. The method by which they lease accommodation from local authorities or housing associations and sub-let it to the students is admirable. It brings into good use accommodation which, as has already been said, might not otherwise be used. Such accommodation is also useful for foreign students who come here for brief periods. I feel sure that the noble Lord, Lord Winston, who is at the Royal Postgraduate Medical School, will probably remind the Committee that most of the distinguished foreign medical people who go there are housed in housing association accommodation.

It would be a very great pity if, by this legislation, we were to deny foreign students the accommodation that they need. It would harm foreign students in the short term, but I beg the Minister and the Committee to consider carefully the long-term damage that it would do to the standing of this country overseas. This is not a trivial matter. It is an extremely serious matter. Therefore, I hope that an exception can be made by the Government in due course, perhaps along the lines of this amendment.

I rise briefly to support all that has been said already. I have nothing much else to say except to point out that many overseas students are postgraduate students. As such, they are often here for a postgraduate degree of, say, three years or occasionally more. One of their most common questions to us is whether there is accommodation for their families. The usual university accommodation is simply not appropriate for them.

I am sure that it is not the Government's intention to exclude that important source of immediate wealth to us or to ignore the long-term investment implications for this country. I beg the Government to consider a way of making sure that students can continue to come here and to occupy such accommodation.

The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, has already made, only very much better, the very points that I had wanted to make. Therefore, I strongly support the hope that some way may be found to solve this problem in favour of students.

As I explained in our other two short debates, our general position on this subject is that persons from abroad who have entered this country on the understanding that they should have no recourse to public funds should not be entitled to assistance under the homelessness legislation; and that persons from abroad who are here only for a limited period should have no call on social housing created with public money to meet long-term needs. This is what Clause 9 of the Bill provides for generally, both for students and for others here on limited leave. I appreciate that noble Lords are not suggesting that overseas students are in some way a special category deserving a general exemption from those provisions.

I totally agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, and echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Winston, and my noble friend Lady Park, that we have had a long and honourable tradition of providing education and training for people from a wide range of countries. We welcome overseas students, but we admit them on the same basis as anyone else who is granted limited leave; namely, that they should support themselves, including meeting all of their housing costs.

I understand that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals is concerned that the provisions may bite on certain universities and colleges which have arrangements under which they lease accommodation from a local authority which they then let on to their students, some of whom may be from overseas. I know of the interest in this matter of my noble friend Lord Goold which relates to his position at Strathclyde University. There are number of houses in Glasgow which the local authority finds it hard to let; nobody particularly wants to live in them. A mutually beneficial deal has been struck between Strathclyde University and the local authority whereby those houses remain in occupation and, as my noble friend said, are improved. Students then make use of them. I understand the issue entirely.

We should be clear that that happens only when a local authority does not require the housing—either because its housing list is not long enough and no one demands the house or because of other factors, which I shall not go into. However, in the case of the Glasgow example which was mentioned by my noble friend, it is probably true to say that most people on the council waiting list would rather wait for a house in a different part of the city than be housed in the accommodation to which we are referring. There are circumstances where an authority may genuinely not have a use for all its housing stock and may find difficulty in letting it. If the authority is simply leasing out accommodation that would otherwise be standing empty, and there is little or no local demand for the accommodation, there may be scope for flexibility.

I discussed the matter a few hours ago with my honourable friend Mr. David Curry, the Minister responsible for housing and local government. Before I spoke to him, he met the noble Earl and my noble friends Lord Goold and Lord Jenkin. Perhaps I may assure the Committee that we shall consider the need to bring forward at Report stage an amendment to the order-making power in this clause to enable local authorities to continue to lease surplus accommodation to universities and colleges for use by overseas students who are here lawfully. I hope that with that assurance the noble Earl will be happy to withdraw his amendment.

I am most grateful for that reply by which I am entirely satisfied. I look forward to seeing the draft of that amendment. It appears to meet absolutely fair and square the point that I was making. I accept the condition that the Minister makes about where there is little or no demand. After all, I too am aware that there are social needs to be considered. That is a fair condition.

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken on this amendment and for the way in which the debate has been conducted entirely irrespective of party. I should like to thank again Mr. Curry and the Minister, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Before I call Amendment No. 101, I must inform the Committee that if that amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 103 to 106 inclusive.

moved Amendment No. 101:

Page 6, line 44, leave out subsection (2).

The question that we must address in considering this amendment is whether people who have sought leave to enter this country on the understanding that they should have no recourse to public funds should be entitled to set aside that undertaking. The immigration rules state quite explicitly that the homelessness legislation falls within the definition of public funds. This extends to those people who sought asylum after entering this country, since to obtain leave to enter they would have had to satisfy the immigration officer that they had the resources to maintain themselves in this country.

The purpose of the homelessness legislation is to ensure that families and vulnerable individuals who lose their homes through no fault of their own are provided with a proper safety net. It is one component of a wider set of welfare provisions that we have in place to help people through a crisis and allow them to continue their normal lives. But it focuses naturally and rightly on those people who are settled in this country.

The principle behind the provisions in subsection (2) is by no means new. In 1993 the Court of Appeal held in the Tower Hamlets case that a person not lawfully in the country because he had entered it illegally or had overstayed his leave was not entitled to assistance under the homelessness legislation. The Home Office is entitled to cancel leave to remain granted to anyone who entered the country lawfully but subsequently breached an undertaking not to have recourse to public funds. To that extent what we are doing here is no more than translating a well established principle in the homelessness legislation.

Your Lordships will be aware that the purpose of this measure is to align entitlement under the homelessness legislation with entitlement to housing benefit, which was withdrawn from most groups of immigrants here on limited leave in 1994 and from asylum seekers earlier this year. Local authorities rely on housing benefit to support a substantial part of the costs they incur. As we have seen from their protests over the past few months, following the withdrawal of benefit entitlement from certain asylum seekers—in particular those who claim in country—it is not tenable to leave the homelessness duty with them in the absence of housing benefit support.

As the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has pointed out, it is true that other countries have different kinds of provision. For example, Germany and Holland provide accommodation in camps and benefits are mainly in kind. We have decided not to go down that route. Those people who seek asylum at the port of entry are eligible for benefits while the Home Office is considering their applications for asylum. If they are turned down and appeal, in those circumstances they are not eligible for benefit. We contend that they should not be eligible to be considered under homelessness legislation either. Similarly, those who enter the country under the strict condition that they will not be a burden on public funds are not eligible if they decide after weeks or months in this country that they wish to apply for asylum.

We believe that we have an effective welfare system in this country which is geared to meet the needs of the most vulnerable members of society, but we must resist attempts to exploit it by people without a proven case and a permanent base in this country. I am afraid that I cannot accept the amendment of the noble Lord. If he decides not to withdraw it and to put it to the Vote, I trust that my noble friends will support me in the Lobby.

Having listened to what the Minister has said, I feel he is not his usual persuasive self. I notice that the Minister has dropped his argument about illegal entrants and overstayers as regards this group of people. (Perhaps he was persuaded by what I said earlier.) Let us confine ourselves to asylum seekers. What he seeks to do is to draw a distinction between those who claim asylum at the port of entry and those who claim asylum after they pass through immigration at Heathrow or Dover and, a few days later, make a claim. I understand why he does that. He seeks to bring it into line with some of the other measures which have been introduced by the Government and those in this Bill. One will still be left with people who are vulnerable and who are without accommodation. It is not clear to me from the wording of this particular clause that asylum seekers who claim asylum at the port of entry, and do it properly by the Government's book, will be entitled to homelessness provision. I find it hard to interpret the measure in that way. Perhaps the Minister can give further assurance on the point.

Nevertheless, the noble Lord has said that the Government do not intend to go down the route followed by countries such as Germany and the Netherlands. He made reference to camps. I think that they are more likely to be hostels than camps, but it may be both. Therefore, he is saying that nothing will be done for these people. It is my contention that when we are dealing with people who are so vulnerable, as a humane, civilised country, we are under an obligation to do something. We talk about those people who fail to claim asylum at the port of entry but do so later. We have all heard the arguments as to why, reasonably and understandably, some asylum seekers do not understand the importance of the distinction. Even if we say that people should apply for asylum at the port of entry, and because they have not done so they will be punished, what about their children? Should they be punished as well because one asylum seeker failed to make the right statement to immigration when coming into the country?

We are dealing with people who are vulnerable, who have not made themselves homeless intentionally, and who are clearly a priority group. They are people who, in most cases for reasons beyond their control, find themselves sleeping on the streets of London and other cities. Surely we do not want that to happen to the small number of vulnerable people who are victims of persecution in the country they left. We are going to make them the victims of the Bill when they get here. That is not the way we should go forward. Perhaps the Minister would be good enough to comment on my query about the two groups of asylum seekers.

Before the Minister replies perhaps I, too, may ask a question. I understood the Minister to say that people who said that they could maintain themselves and came into the country on that undertaking, and who subsequently claimed assistance, were not to be supported. They might have come in with a well-founded, genuine belief that they would be able to support themselves. They might have work in prospect or a generous relation who was going to fork out. Both of those optimistic futures might be denied them. They might start in a job and lose it. The relation who is going to help might help for a while and then abandon them. They would then be penniless and homeless. Are we going to do nothing about those people even if they were genuine when they first arrived?

Perhaps I may ask the Minister a question before he replies to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, asked about the children. I should like to know whether local authorities, under legislation relating to children, would be obliged to take the children into care. If that is so, has the cost of doing so been taken into account in the Financial and Explanatory Memorandum, because I cannot find it anywhere there? The assumption is that anyone who has applied too late, after going through immigration control procedures—whether he has three, five or eight children—will be denied the housing to which he would otherwise have been entitled under the homelessness legislation.

In those circumstances will the local authority have to pick up the pieces by offering the children places in a local authority home or by fostering them? If so, has the Minister any idea what that will cost this country's ratepayers and taxpayers?

As we all seem to be raising points for my noble friend to reply to, I should like to follow up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. As I understand it, a common pattern that local authorities find is that people arrive with a letter from someone guaranteeing to support them and that they will be no burden on the state. As I understand it, we take that on face value in this country.

A few minutes ago I met a woman who works in the House. She told me that she was very pleased because the Australian immigration authorities had just agreed to allow her to go there. It has been quite a battle, and I have been involved in it. She said that her daughter was paying the money. I asked her what she meant. She said, "Oh well, I have to put up"—I wrote it down on my hand because I was called out of the Chamber to have a word with her—"3,500 dollars plus 1,500 dollars for my husband and 1,500 dollars for my mother. That is 6,500 dollars to ensure that we do not claim state benefits for a period of two years. We have to pay a further 800 dollars per person to be sure that we do not call on the health service".

This country does not demand that people put up a guarantee in the form of a bond or money. We take people's word when the letters say that they will be supported. It is a great breach of trust if that is not true. It is happening all the time: people arrive, and a few days later they claim all these benefits. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said that it could go on a long time and that people could run out of money. That is different. If it goes on a long time, they might qualify for some entitlement from the local authority. People arrive deliberately with documents assuring everyone that they will be no burden on the state when they have every intention of being such a burden. We cannot accept that.

I shall respond to the questions that I have been asked. My noble friend Lady Gardner made a good point. We should look at what other countries do. We accept what people say abroad when seeking a visa to enter this country, or what they tell the immigration officer at the port of entry when they say why they are here. If they say that they are here for this reason or that reason and will not be a burden on public funds, I like to think that we can continue to live in a world where we take them at their word, and do not have to go down the road of asking them, so to speak, to put down deposits as a mark of their good faith.

But it is a problem when people turn round a few days, weeks, or months later and say, "Oh, by the way, all that I said about not being a burden on public funds and coming here for a holiday, to see my relatives, or whatever it is, was not true. I am coming here because I want to seek asylum". That is not right. The provision that we have made is clear.

Perhaps I may interrupt the Minister. That is not the question that I was asking. I hope that my question will not be confused in the reply that he is giving. I was talking about people who came here genuinely, who may have obtained a job, and who months later, as so easily happens, lost it and became in need. They may be genuine people. I agree with the Minister that if they are trying to fool the authorities, and two or three days later turn round and say that the offer is not valid, their request should not be considered. But if they are genuine, and have been here for months, and then fall on bad times, are we saying that we cannot do anything for them?

If the noble Baroness had been patient for a moment or two she would have saved herself a second speech; I was coming to that issue. I was addressing a point made by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes. I shall turn to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, in a few moments. First, perhaps I may turn to her noble friend Lord Avebury who asked about the duties of local authorities under the Children Act. Local authorities have a general duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in need within their area. That involves a general duty to promote the upbringing of such children by their families.

It is for individual local authorities to decide what form that assistance will take. They can make cash payments in exceptional circumstances, but those can be for a limited period only. They may decide not only to take a child into care, but also to help the parents and the family to house themselves and the children. Under the Children Act we cater for children who enter in those circumstances. We will come later to the question of the costs.

In previous debates on income support and housing benefit we made it clear that we would be in discussion, as we are, with the local authorities, to quantify the additional costs, and that we are prepared to pay them up to 80 per cent. of what we identify jointly as the additional costs arising from their obligations.

Which does the Minister think will be more expensive: for the local authority to offer the parents of the asylum application family accommodation so that they can look after their own children, to take the children into care in a local authority home, or to foster them? Which will be more expensive?

My Lords, I believe that I covered almost all those eventualities. I said that it was a matter for local authorities to decide. As regards a child who has come to this country alone, fostering or care might be the only option. However, if a child has come as part of the family the most sensible course of action for a local authority might be to help the family with housing. Those costs are being discussed between ourselves and the local authorities with a view to arriving at a sensible arrangement.

I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, made my case for me. The people to whom she referred came to this country and said why they were coming. They were not intent on seeking asylum. They came here to visit relatives or to find work. Many people who come here cannot obtain a visa in order to find work; they must go through more hoops than that. However, many people, for whatever reason, come to this country, go about their business and fall on hard times. They cannot just turn around and say—or can they?—"Wait a minute! I know how to get out of this dilemma. I will claim asylum". We are not talking about people who come here to claim asylum. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, made my case for me in relation to people who make in-country applications. When many of them enter the country, making a claim for asylum at the port is the furthest thing from their minds. They come here to do all kinds of other things. But for a variety of reasons, when many of them are here they decide to claim asylum.

I turn to the main point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. I hoped that I had made this clear. The categories of immigrants which will be specified in regulations under this subsection will make it clear that the orders will not apply to asylum seekers who claimed asylum on arrival during the period when their claim was under consideration by the Home Office. That provision is entirely consistent with the availability of income support and housing benefit to asylum seekers at the port of entry and for the duration of the time during which the Home Office is considering their application. I hope that that explanation clarifies the position.

However, I know that, although the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, may be pleased to hear that clarification, he would prefer to retain the position which existed before we made any changes; that is the position in which all one had to do was to come here and either at the port of entry or after having lived here for some time claim asylum and then be able to claim income support, housing benefit and the protection of the homelessness legislation. We are proposing to remove most of those concessions to people from abroad but we intend to keep available income support, housing benefit and the application of the homelessness legislation to those people who claim asylum at the port of entry.

I thank the Minister for that clarification but I take issue with the fundamental argument that he is putting forward. Perhaps I may try to clear up some confusion. It is clear that the clause applies to asylum seekers, but it appears to apply also to people who seek properly to come to this country as migrants on the condition that they do not have recourse to public funds. An intermediate group of asylum seekers does not claim asylum at the port of entry. They are, therefore, in the Minister's eyes, by implication, arriving on the condition that they do not have recourse to public funds and they then make a claim. There are three groups of people and perhaps I may disentangle the arguments relating to them.

I shall deal first with people who come to this country on a planned basis in the way in which the Minister would wish. Those people have the resources to look after themselves but may find themselves in changed circumstances before their immigration status has been confirmed. They will not be eligible for the homelessness provisions, even though the change of circumstance, such as a house being burned down, is beyond their control. That is one group of people.

In relation to them and in reply to a comment made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, I understand that when people arrive in this country we do not take sponsorship letters or such undertakings at face value. Before giving entry clearance, the Home Office scrutinises the financial support that is available. Therefore, the issue is not quite as simple as the noble Baroness maintained—

Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord for clarification. If the Home Office makes a check and discovers that the financial support exists, why do so many of those people appear on the doorstep of the council to claim housing benefit or other support?

I am not aware that many such people do, but there may be some. The noble Baroness may be talking about asylum seekers who are faced with difficulties. There may be a dispute between us about the figures, but I have seen no indication that that happens other than on a very small scale.

I turn now to the two groups of asylum seekers. The Minister will be aware that, of the asylum seekers who do not claim asylum at the port of entry, the vast majority, some 80 per cent., make their asylum claim within a week of being in the country. As a result of that gap of one week they are to be penalised in the way proposed. I contend that that is unjust. We tried—and we may try again on Report—to put into the Bill a safeguard that they will be covered provided that asylum is claimed within a short period. As yet that provision is not on the face of the Bill. I believe that to punish people in such a way is very harsh. It may also result in local authorities having to bear heavy costs of caring for children who must be taken into care because there is no accommodation for them.

Surely a clear principle is involved. We are talking about people who are vulnerable, who represent only a small minority of asylum seekers and for whom a little decency in terms of the way in which we treat them will not be a magnet for asylum seekers, or those purporting to be, the world over. I am talking about the way we treat people who have a well-founded fear of persecution.

Another group will fall through the net because, even on the Minister's own statement, if asylum seekers claim asylum at the port of entry and are then refused asylum by the Home Office and wish to exercise their right of appeal, they will lose all benefits between the date of the Home Office refusal and the date of the appeal hearing. That may be many months, if not years. I can interpret what the Minister said only as meaning that if during that period the local authority has provided them with accommodation for homeless people, they will be thrown out of it because they will no longer be eligible under the terms of the Bill. This is a miserable measure and I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.