asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they will increase the funding, via the Higher Education Funding Council, of exceptionally talented overseas research students to ensure the continuing excellence and international competitiveness of scholarships and research in leading United Kingdom universities.

My Lords, decisions on funding for the overseas research student awards scheme are determined by the Higher Education Funding Council for England. The scheme's budget for the 2002–03 academic year will be a maximum of £12 million, compared with £11.2 million last year. Up to 850 new awards and 1,400 renewals will be made under the scheme to individual research students.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, are the Government aware that without further expansion of the current scheme or an equivalent one, and without improved work permit arrangements, leading UK universities which are losing UK university research students will not be able to offer places to the ablest scholars from around the world, who will clearly be deflected to the United States?

My Lords, we are very concerned to ensure that we have as many opportunities as possible for students to come here from overseas to engage in research. My noble friend will be aware of the initiative to that effect launched by the Prime Minister. I am pleased that the number of international higher education students in this country is increasing dramatically. Noble Lords will be pleased to know that the non-EU total for international students has increased this year to 141,000, compared with 110,000 in 1996–97. In looking at our strategy for higher education, the valid points which my noble friend has made are taken into account.

My Lords, while I support the concept behind the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, I hope that the Minister believes it is important that, when these students have completed their studies here and obtained their degrees or done their post-doctoral work, they will return to their own countries and have a strong input into the development of excellence in science there. Is that not important?

My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very important point. It is essential that, as part of the global scientific community, we ensure that we have the right kind of research and those opportunities to collaborate. Those students benefit this country, and they should be able to do the same for their own nation.

My Lords, I should first declare an interest as a governor of the LSE and as vice-chairman of the Open University. In view of the mounting financial crisis in universities, does the Minister agree that if our universities are to maintain the standards of excellence necessary to attract the outstanding students for whom this ORS scheme is designed, the Government clearly have to set free the universities not only to increase their fees significantly, but of course to retain the proceeds?

My Lords, the noble Baroness raises an important point. I am sure that noble Lords are fully aware of the current review of student finance. They may also be aware from this morning's press of the major strategy paper that we shall publish in the autumn. These questions are very much part of the Government's thinking.

My Lords, is the noble Baroness able to confirm or deny the story in The Times this morning that education is a big winner in the Comprehensive Spending Review?

My Lords, that is a great question for the noble Lord's birthday, which I understand is today. However, I am unable to confirm or deny that. Noble Lords may have noticed that I have my fingers crossed.

My Lords, the Minister will be aware of the prestigious Marie Curie scholarships which are granted by the European Commission. To what extent is Britain receiving its fair share of these young scholars to work in our laboratories, and to what extent are our own scholars gaining this opportunity to work in laboratories abroad?

My Lords, as I knew that the noble Baroness is interested in this issue, I was careful to ensure that I had the information. The United Kingdom has the highest take-up rate among those receiving awards under the Marie Curie scheme. The noble Baroness will be very pleased to hear that the United Kingdom is the number one destination for award recipients. Some 30 per cent come here, with 17 per cent going to France and 10.5 per cent to Germany. I have been unable to ascertain the flow of traffic in the opposite direction, but I shall of course write to her when I have that information.

My Lords, will the Minister soon be reviewing the salary level of all those working in higher education, to ensure that our students do not become overseas students in the near future?

My Lords, the noble Lord raises the important issue of academic pay. Noble Lords will not only have heard me and others talk about that issue; they will also be aware of the additional funding for higher education pay—£170 million for 2003–04, for example—that we made available in the last spending review. We are also considering introducing a scheme of "golden hellos" for new staff in shortage subjects. As noble Lords will be aware, we expect to announce those plans in the autumn. We very clearly examine what is happening to academic salaries around the globe. Research by organisations such as the Association of Commonwealth Universities and the US National Center for Education Statistics shows that, although there are disparities in some cases, academic salary levels are roughly the same.

My Lords, is the Minister aware of the immense value of the Chevening scholarship scheme—which I realise is not sponsored by her department—in bringing the younger generation of potential world leaders to British universities? Can she assure us that that scheme will be maintained and, if possible, expanded further? A number of my former students are now rapidly rising up the political, administrative and other ladders in their own countries. That is a long-term investment for Britain.

My Lords, indeed, I can give that commitment. I assure the noble Lord that we are keen to ensure that we have long-term relationships with other countries. I understand from my noble friend that we have increased the Chevening scholarship.

My Lords, I declare an interest as a professor emeritus in an American university. Does the Minister accept that the real comparison has to be between the salaries paid in the United States and those paid in this country as most able graduates who are in the market for academic jobs are attracted to the United States rather than to anywhere else? Does she not agree that salaries in the United States are of the order of one-and-a-half to two times greater in real terms than in this country and that there is a serious continuing brain drain to American universities?

My Lords, I have looked carefully at the figures for American universities. As the noble Baroness will be aware—she deservedly holds a post at a prestigious American university—salaries at American universities vary considerably. The noble Baroness makes an important point. The average professor at certain American universities receives a salary well in excess of 100,000 US dollars. As I say, there is great variety in that area. We consider carefully what we should be doing in that regard across the whole field of higher education.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

How much the refurbishing of the British Museum's new Great Court cost, and how great are the annual costs for maintaining this museum.

My Lords, the museum's Great Court project cost a total of £99.6 million. The Millennium Commission contributed £30 million, the Heritage Lottery Fund £15.4 million, the Garfield Weston Foundation £20 million and the remaining £34.2 million was funded by private sponsorship. The museum's operating costs in 2000–01 were £51.4 million and its estimated outturn in 2001–02 is £57.8 million.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her courteous and informative reply. Does she agree—as I am sure she does—that the British Museum is a splendid, world-renowned and great building? It is the British Museum. That does seem a great deal of money but the Great Court is absolutely marvellous in every way and something of enduring value. Could she perhaps tell us by contrast how much the Millennium Dome, which is beautiful but ephemeral, cost?

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, says, the British Museum is a great institution with fantastic collections, marvellous scholarship, wonderful visitor facilities and extremely interesting exhibitions. It is extremely important to Britain's cultural life and it is important that it should continue to operate as a successful institution. I do not believe that the noble Baroness's question about the Dome has very much to do with the future of the British Museum.

My Lords, I declare my interest as joint president of the All-Party Arts and Heritage Group. Has my noble friend seen the letter from Sir Patrick Cormack, the chairman of that group, explaining the problems of the British Museum? It is probably the greatest museum in the world. This autumn Neil MacGregor will move from the National Gallery to become the Director of the British Museum. We must encourage him to use his talents in the best way by ensuring that there will be sufficient funds not to close any of the great rooms and to be able to maintain the standards of that great institution. Will my noble friend continue to show her enthusiasm for the British Museum which she has shown in the past?

My Lords, my enthusiasm for the British Museum knows no bounds. I shall certainly continue to try to demonstrate it. I have had a number of discussions with Neil MacGregor who will, as my noble friend said, become the Director of the British Museum. He has some extremely exciting and interesting plans for it. As regards its funding, the Government have provided a 4.7 per cent real-terms increase in funding for the museum since 1998. Clearly, I am unable to say what the future holds for its funding until the outcome of the spending review.

My Lords, in view of these great financial difficulties, will the British Museum sell off any items from its collection, as I am afraid that it has done sometimes in the past in the case of the Benin Bronzes, many of which were not duplicates?

My Lords, I do not believe that the British Museum has any intention of selling off any of its collection. Indeed, it is proscribed by law from doing so, with the exception of duplicates. I understand that the Benin Bronzes that were given to the Government of Nigeria to allow them to establish a museum for them were all duplicates.

My Lords, is not the problem with the British Museum somewhat more profound than that of the criticism it has received about the Great Court, its cost, its magnificent roof and the other improvements? Those at the museum must have been disappointed about the kind of stone that was used, which was not that which was ordered, but that pales into insignificance beside the fact that, as has been said, it is one of the greatest museums in the world. However, in a way, through no fault of its own, it has riot quite caught up with the demands of the 21st century. After all, it was a 19th century institution. It maintains high standards but it is finding it difficult to balance its books. Will the Government give an undertaking that they will not only support it financially, but also support it in trying to develop a new strategy so that it attracts more people through its portals and thus generates more income to pay its staff, among other things?

My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, was absolutely right to imply that the Great Court is not the cause of the museum's present financial problems. The Great Court has been enormously successful as an exciting piece of architecture and in providing additional facilities for the museum. I believe that it has also helped to attract more visitors. The museum's financial problems are a result of lower than expected visitor numbers, which are partly due to foot and mouth and September 11th, a downturn in spend per head from American visitors in particular and a poorer than expected trading performance in general. The Government will work with the museum to help it to deal with those problems. I am glad to report that visitor numbers are now on the increase.

My Lords—

My Lords, would my noble friend comment on—

My Lords, I think that it is our turn. I thank the noble Lord.

In view of the fact that the British Museum is one of the museums that attracts most overseas visitors, will the Government continue to refuse to allow it to charge for entry to its ordinary exhibitions?

My Lords, the Government are convinced that the policy of free entry to our great national museums and galleries is absolutely right. That policy has led to a 60 per cent increase in the numbers of people visiting our great museums and galleries since it was introduced in December last year and to a 65 per cent increase in the numbers of people coming from social groups that do not normally visit museums. We intend to maintain what has been a hugely successful policy.

asked Her Majesty's Government: Whether they will consider introducing a scheme whereby those individuals whose quality of life, or whose property's value, would be enhanced by the provision of a bypass for their community would be enabled to make a voluntary financial contribution to public funds to defray part of the cost of providing such a bypass.

My Lords, we have no plans to introduce such a scheme.

My Lords, I am not surprised that that is a fact. However, does the Minister understand my surprise that Her Majesty's Treasury should not welcome the idea of private contributions to the public purse, especially when those contributions are for public purposes and because in this situation, although the more affluent contribute, the less affluent will also enjoy? Does he recognise that this country urgently needs more bypasses for people whose quality of life has been made miserable by the increase in traffic, particularly on trunk roads? My suggestion is one means whereby more bypasses could be made available. Will he at least have another look at it?

My Lords, my first Answer was an answer of fact, as the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, knows. Of course our minds are never closed to any new ideas. If the noble Lord would like to prepare a paper on the subject putting forward his arguments, I am sure that John Spellar, the Minister responsible for roads, would be interested to read it and, no doubt, to meet him to discuss it. He will be aware, as we all are, of the potential difficulties. Any road scheme benefits some people and disbenefits others. The thought of private money coming in to pay for an enhanced quality of life and property values for one person, although that might have the reverse effect for somebody else, is clearly a potential difficulty.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the main obstacle to building such bypasses is the time that it takes to consult, plan and to get the line of route orders, which usually take up to 15 years? Will he also tell us what the Government's policy is towards the problem that besets us all; that is, road traffic congestion?

My Lords, part of the answer is one that I perhaps should have given to the second question of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford; that is, that we recognise the benefit of bypasses. Of the 56 road plans in the current programme, about half are bypasses.

I shall answer the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, more directly. Since the roads review in 1998, we have very much speeded up the process of approval for new road schemes. In the old days, under the previous government, the road programme was something of a wish list and it could indeed take 15 or 20 years before anything was done. Now, because we have set more precise criteria, nothing goes into the road programme until there is a real desire to complete it and the money has been allocated.

My Lords, is there not a danger in the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, that the priorities might be distorted in terms of providing bypasses? If one group can provide some of the money, that might attract the available money from the Government or from local government, although the priority for that bypass might not be as great as the priority for another scheme that was squeezed out?

My Lords, that is one of the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, will no doubt address in the paper that he will write for the Minister responsible for roads. Imagine, for example, that someone proposed a bypass around Woodbridge in Suffolk and that there were questions about whether it should be on the east or the west side. Would that be decided on the basis of which side paid more in contributions?

My Lords, can we take it that the noble Lord's answers are an acceptance of the fact that financial contributions to the Treasury are already at a more than adequate level?

My Lords, I do not think that the Treasury would ever agree with that! On the issue of road projects, to which I am sure Lord Peyton wished to refer—I am sure that he would not wish to stray from the Question on the Order Paper—it is true that there are private contributions towards road projects. If a trading estate, for example, needs access to a new trunk road, those who run and pay for the trading estate will pay for that access; and quite right, too.

My Lords—

My Lords—

My Lords—

This side!

My Lords, would not the answer to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, be an unconditional "yes" in the event that he would consider deleting the words "part or in line five of his Question?

My Lords, the issues that have emerged in this short debate make it clear that it is not the amount of the contribution that is the problem but the issue of equity between one citizen and another.

My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House consider it correct that one of his Ministers should continually reject the advice of the Procedure Committee on appellations, which we discussed a week ago? He continues to call people just "Lord So-and-so"—he referred to "Lord Peyton"—as opposed to "the noble Lord, Lord Peyton".

My Lords, I believe that it is for me to answer the question of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers—

Hear, hear!

My Lords, if any Member of the House is offended by the appellation that I use, I undertake to address him as I have addressed the noble Earl.

My Lords, does the Minister accept in general terms that my noble friend Lord Marlesford has a point? As Treasury money is certainly going to run out on present forecasts in the next few years unless income tax is raised, any suggestions for new public/private partnerships should surely be welcomed by the Treasury rather than spurned. Whether the money is for bypasses or private contributions to healthcare plans, a broader vision is needed.

My Lords, I do not accept the premise—the forecast—that Lord Renton of Mount Harry advanced.

My Lords, the noble Lord!

My Lords, however, if there is anything in the idea, I repeat that our minds are not closed to new ideas.

My Lords, surely the answer to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is that rich villages should be able to fund a bypass and that they should also be able to put a toll on it so that we can get back to the days of turnpikes!

My Lords, that is another issue that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, might well consider in his paper, which he has not yet undertaken to write. However, I am sure that he will.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether the performance of the new SA80-A2 rifle used by British Forces in Afghanistan is satisfactory.

My Lords, the SA80-A2 is operating in a very difficult environment in Afghanistan with both dusty conditions and extremes of temperatures. We have had reports from Afghanistan of equipment failure. In any operational environment, such reports must be investigated as a matter of urgency, but we need to establish all the facts before commenting further.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that a degree of confidence must be built into the SA80-A2 because the SA80 needed modifications? Those included a new breech block, breech bolt, cartridge extractor, cartridge ejector, recoil springs, extractor spring, firing pin, cocking handle, magazine, gas plug and cylinder, and the light support weapon has been given a new barrel and hammer. I do not believe that many parts of the rifle have stayed the same. Considering those minor modifications in changing from the SA80 to the new A2, can the Minister say whether the soldiers are confident in their weapons? If they are, can he say why the LSW was not used in Afghanistan?

My Lords, we believe that servicemen are confident in this weapon. The earlier weapons to which the noble Lord referred by implication came on stream well before our watch.

Oh!

My Lords, I believe it is right to point that out. However, investigations are ongoing and it would he foolish to tell the House anything that is not the result of those investigations. We do not believe that the weapon is faulty. When on patrol, it is necessary for the weapon to have dust removed from the main parts and it should also be appropriately oiled. It does not need to be fully stripped. Such cleaning can be carried out in a very short time—seconds rather than minutes.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that four weeks ago today members of the Defence Study Group visited the admirable School of Infantry at Warminster? There, we met the experienced officers and senior NCOs who are very familiar with the weapon. Some had been involved in the extensive trials which were undertaken in a wide variety of environments. We were shown the new weapon and the changes were explained to us. We were able to fire the weapon on the range and it worked. Therefore, does my noble friend consider that this is another example of some sections of the press trying to make mountains out of molehills?

My Lords, I would never accuse any sections of the press of doing that. However, I am grateful to my noble friend. He told me that he and others had visited Warminster on that occasion. I believe that what he found when trying out the SA80-A2 was what most other people have found when using it. It has gone through the most severe tests and has been successful in all of them.

My Lords, can the Minister inform the House of the failure rate in rounds fired from the SA80-A2, the M16 and the AK47 rifles? Have any faults been reported by the SAS in their use of the Demarco rifle?

My Lords, as to the last part of the noble Lord's question, he knows that we do not comment on equipment that special forces may or may not have. As to the first part of his question relating to failure rates, extensive trials were undertaken before the SA80 was issued. As I replied a moment or two ago, those trials demonstrated that the SA80-A2 was a very reliable weapon system. The testing included trials in Kuwait in very high temperatures with strong winds and blowing sand.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, when I held the position that he now holds with so much greater distinction that I did, I took delivery of the first SA80 for the British Army? In the subsequent target-shooting competition with the then Chief of the General Staff, I was the clear victor. Clearly there cannot be too much wrong with the weapon.

My Lords, I was not aware that the noble Lord had had such a great victory. But it was some time ago and I am glad that he remembers it so well.

My Lords, as I understand it, the refurbishment of the weapon cost £93 million. What would be the cost of starting again from scratch and producing another weapon in which all the forces have confidence or of using any of the other rifles which are available on the market at present?

My Lords, as a very small correction, I believe that the figure is £92 million. The cost of replacing the SA80 would be in the region of £500 million. That would be the cost of buying a new system, including spares, additional infrastructure, rifle racks, blank firing adapters, and so on. We have no intention of doing that.

My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that this matter is part of a bigger problem? Does he recall that as recently as November 2000 the Public Accounts Committee of the other place produced a very critical report on procurement in the Ministry of Defence? It pointed out, among other things, that 60 per cent of weapons examined by the National Audit Office after acceptance into the Armed Forces had not fulfilled the users' requirements. Can he confirm that, since then, we have had problems with armoured vehicles in Oman, with the hunter-killer submarine and with the upgrading of the Tornado aircraft? Do not our Armed Forces deserve something rather better than that?

My Lords, I am aware of the Public Accounts Committee report which the noble Lord mentioned. I am sure that he is aware of one published just a week or so ago which expressed in clear terms the progress being made on defence equipment. I know that the noble Lord would want to be fair and recognise that there are many great successes in defence equipment going back many years under both governments. I believe that sometimes we should talk more about those than about others. So far as concerns the SA80, I ask the noble Lord, along with other noble Lords, to await the outcome of the investigations.

My Lords, at a convenient time after 3.30 p.m. my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on the Government's drugs policy.

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.—(Lord Filkin.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

moved Amendment No. 107A:

Page 9, line 16, at end insert "and

() there is a place available in an appropriate maintained school for any dependant of school age"

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 107A, I shall speak also to Clauses 31 and 32. I want to focus on the issue of education for children. Perhaps I may relate to the Committee the experience that I, as an immigrant, have had when dealing with children.

The children who come with their families as immigrants are, in many cases, in a highly disturbed mental state. They have been asked to leave their homes without understanding why their families have suddenly decided to leave their country and to settle in a new one. Their minds are full of fear because of what they hear from their parents. They do not understand what is being said, but the fear stems from hearing their parents talking, in some cases, about prisons and police. One fine morning their family decides to leave their country, more often than not clandestinely and without a specific or normal form of transport.

Such children arrive in this country satisfied by the one notion which their parents are able to give them—that they are going to a country that is free and fair and to a home where they may be able to settle down without fear or isolation. Those are the children who arrive with their parents in this country. The impressions they carry from the past are those of repression, persecution, prison and so forth. Their expectations are of coming to a free country. They hope to find sanctuary, as their parents tell them.

On both those issues, the children are in a confused state, to say the least. My amendment deals with that situation. One of the things the children probably most understand is that they will attend school as soon as they reach England. If a child suddenly finds that he is being isolated from normal schools, which perhaps are just outside the centre, and that he is expected to attend a specially designed education centre within the accommodation centre, that could bring back images of isolation, persecution and all the other issues which are in the minds of children who arrive here.

Clauses 31 and 32 remove the duty on the local education authorities to provide education for children in accommodation centres. That means that children in the centres will no longer have the right to be educated in mainstream schools. My amendments would remove those clauses and require that families with children of school age may be placed in accommodation centres only if there are school places available locally.

The issue was not debated in the House of Commons. That is a great shame, given the depth and breadth of feeling about it. Indeed, over 140 MPs, over 100 of whom were Labour, signed a Motion calling on the Government to withdraw this part of the Bill. As a result of some of that pressure, the Home Secretary offered to ensure that after six months the education of children in accommodation centres would be reviewed. But that does not represent any significant change in the Government's position, given that they have always indicated that asylum seekers would spend about six months in the centres.

The Government have also sought to justify the proposal by saying that most asylum seekers who end up being recognised as refugees will remain in accommodation centres for only two months. But in the Standing Committee, in response to calls for a six-month time limit on a stay in an accommodation centre, Angela Eagle said that six months was "a tough call" in terms of processing claims.

Segregated education is regressive and discriminatory. Our education system should be freely available to all children living in this country, as was envisaged when it was created. To say that a child's refugee status should determine whether they can attend mainstream school is a dangerous and unprecedented attack on the principle of universal access to mainstream schools.

The concept of "separate but equal" was discredited decades ago. What is more, such an argument misses the point. Opposition to this proposal is grounded not on differing opinions on the nature of the quality of the education that will be provided, but on the fundamental principle that is at stake. That principle is simple: no group of schoolchildren should be compulsorily educated separately from other children on the basis of their immigration status.

It is interesting to note that some of the arguments used by the Government to defend this policy were also used to defend vouchers. We were told that vouchers would be equal to what other people receive, only different, and that they would be necessary for short periods, so the strong opposition was unwarranted. Vouchers were abolished and I believe that this discriminatory policy on education for children will fail, like all other discriminatory policies before it.

Children (like adults) and asylum seekers (like all of us) have fundamental human rights. Those are set out in detail in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which the UK signed up in 1991. The convention makes clear that rights within it must apply to all children without discrimination. Furthermore, Article 28 sets out a child's right to be educated on the basis of equal opportunity and states that different forms of secondary education should be available and accessible to every child. It is difficult to see how refusing refugee children access to mainstream schools could not be in violation of Article 28.

Article 3 of the convention is also relevant. It states that in all actions concerning children,

"the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration".

I strongly contest any assertion that the best interests of the child are guiding this policy. The Government state that it will be better for children seeking asylum to be educated separately, but that flies in the face of what we are told by the charities and organisations which work with such children. On what evidence is the claim that the children will be better off being educated in the accommodation centres based? In particular, which professional organisations and other experts have endorsed that view?

The list of experts and broad spectrum of organisations fiercely opposed to the education proposals on the basis that they are not in the interests of children and violate their rights includes: Save the Children; the Refugee Council; the T&G Union; the Children's Society; the National Union of Teachers the National Society for the Protection of Children the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association Barnardo's; Oxfam, the Association of Teachers and Lecturers; UNICEF, and many others.

Children seeking asylum have deep concerns about the proposals. One child consulted by Save the Children said that they would feel as if they were in prison if they were not allowed to go to the local school from the accommodation centres. Another pointed out that they would learn English more quickly if they went to school. The Joint Committee on Human Rights recently issued its report on the Bill. In respect of education proposals the report stated in paragraph 62:

"We understand the disquiet which has been expressed at the prospect of removing the children of destitute asylum-seekers residing in accommodation centres from mainstream schools, and educating them separately in accommodation centres. It gives rise to troubling echoes of historical educational regimes in some other countries where children were educated separately on the basis of race or colour, under the now discredited pretence that the separate provision was equal. Separate education on the basis of ethnicity or national origin breeds and entrenches social and educational inequality and inhibits or even deters integration".

It is difficult to see how this disturbing policy squares with the Government's broader social inclusion agenda, particularly in terms of ensuring that the same opportunities are available to all children in the UK, whatever their circumstances. Elsewhere, the Government are making strenuous efforts to promote inclusion and integration. Those efforts will clearly be undermined by the ramifications of the segregated education system. The draft children's strategy published by the Children and Young People's Unit at the end of 2001 states:

"We believe that all policies and services for children and young people should be: Equitable and non-discriminatory. All children and young people should have access to, and be enabled to participate in, services that they need, when they need them, in a way which respects diversity and their individual needs."

It would be interesting to know how much the Home Office talked to colleagues in the Children and Young People's Unit and in the DfES when this policy was formulated. It certainly does not inspire confidence in the Government's claim to be promoting joined-up thinking across departments. It is important to recognise that for children, integration cannot wait until a final positive decision has been made on their asylum claims. What may be a relatively short period for an adult can seem like a lifetime for a child and represents a significant part of childhood and development.

Proposals to provide services and to educate refugee children separately will have a long-term detrimental effect on their development and successful integration into society.

Save the Children works with children seeking asylum in this country and, based on its experience, believes that inclusion is a vital ingredient of rehabilitation. It has found that mainstream schools are the ideal starting point for refugee children to rebuild their lives and to enable the genuine inclusion of all children and their families in our communities. The structure and routine of a regular school day can help to provide a sense of normality and security in a child's life, which is vital to promoting their emotional, educational and social well-being.

It is interesting—and disturbing—to consider what kind of messages we are sending to the public by not just sanctioning a system of segregated education but actually creating one. There is surely a danger that that kind of measure has the unintended but predictable consequence of giving oxygen to prejudice and signalling to the public that discriminatory treatment of asylum seekers is acceptable. It is a sad lesson to teach children that if you are different you are set apart.

The status of children seeking asylum as asylum seekers should always take second place to their status as children. Uppermost in our minds as we formulate policies that affect these vulnerable children should be a clear and a genuine desire to discharge our duties to protect and care for them and at all times to promote their best interests.

If Amendment No. 107A is accepted, Clauses 31 and 32 would be redundant as refugee children would be educated in mainstream schools. I beg to move.

I express my warm support for the amendment. I believe that it goes to the heart of the question of whether the Government really and seriously put the welfare of the child before any other consideration in caring for them while they are in this country and preparing them, in many cases, to be fully integrated into British society.

Yesterday the Minister said on a number of occasions that he believed that accommodation centres would be good places for asylum seekers to be. That may be the case for some people. It may be the case for some of the adults. I believe that it is not the case for any children. It is self-evident that children will be better cared for if they are educated in mainstream schools.

There are serious worries about the educational provision that might be made in accommodation centres. The teachers there will not necessarily be required to have completed an initial teacher training course. What will the quality of teaching be? Matters such as anti-bullying policies and discipline will not be covered by statutory duties but set out in individual agreements made for each accommodation centre. There will be no obligation for an accommodation centre to have a child protection policy in place. That is a serious worry.

No one quite knows what the role of the LEA will be in the delivery of education in such places. It becomes clear that the education to be provided in such places would be less good than the education in maintained schools. By definition, we cannot want asylum-seekers' children to be educated in this way.

It is important to recognise the experience in mainstream schools of caring for asylum-seeker children, which, by and large, is quite good. It can be challenging but it can be successfully achieved. Some comments made by head teachers are relevant here. One said:

"We challenge anyone to stand in our playground and pick out the refugees from the rich array of children happily playing together. We regard the presence of refugee children with their particular experiences as a unique benefit to other pupils".

Quite apart from the benefit to themselves of being in that place,

"They [other pupils] learn a great deal from them and develop knowledge, respect and acceptance".

Another head teacher said:

"My point is not that the proposals are illegal"—

which of course they would not be if the Bill were to be enacted—

"nor that they are morally indefensible (which I believe them to be), but that they are unnecessary, resource-inefficient and fundamentally at odds with the Government's avowed commitment to pluralism and social inclusion. I am convinced that educating refugees and asylum seekers in a mainstream school actually works, and that my experience, backed by the judgement of Ofsted and HMI, supports that conviction".

There is evidence that it works; that it can be done; and that it is a better way of doing it. Certainly children, so far as they know their own minds, want to go into schools, as the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, has said. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has commented critically on that part of the provision of the Bill.

I wonder whether the Minister has done his sums on the matter. Yesterday it was claimed that 80 per cent of asylum seekers would be young single men and that 20 per cent would be partly single women and partly families. Families comprise parents as well as children. Might it be reasonable to suggest that 5 per cent of asylum seekers will be children of school age? Even if we have accommodation centres on the scale of 700 people, which I hope we do not, we shall have 35 children in each centre. One does not have to be a genius in educational policy or mathematics to know that schooling provided in such a place for 35 children, ranging in age from five to 16, would be an educational disaster, however good the teaching. The evidence is that the teaching will be less good than that provided in maintained schools.

It is self-evident that this amendment is a highly desirable one. I beg the Government to accept it so that families will go into accommodation centres only if schooling is available for school age children in mainstream schools.

I strongly support the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia. This is one of the most regrettable—I feel almost like saying disgraceful—parts of a Bill which sets out to be positive and welcoming to asylum seekers and to refugees generally. I dread to think what would have happened to me if, when I came here at the age of 13, I had been somehow prevented going to a mainstream school.

As the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia has said, these clauses send exactly the wrong signals to the rest of the country and to communities. They send a signal that for some reason or other best known to the Government these children will be educated in ghettos called "accommodation centres". That is exactly the wrong signal. The clauses go against all the worthy remarks that we have heard from Ministers about integration. On the first day in Committee, when I spoke about naturalisation, I questioned the Government's insistence that applicants for naturalisation, who were probably previously children of asylum seekers, should be tested not just for English, which is desirable, but for their knowledge of society. The whole signal was meant to be that these people should be integrated totally into our society. How do the Government square that with this attempt to separate children to begin with from the hope of total integration? It goes exactly in the opposite direction.

There are other objections of a more technical kind. What will happen to these children after six months when, having been in the obscure accommodation centre and separately taught, they go into a mainstream school—if that is what happens. I could go on, but the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, has made all the points. There are no sound arguments in favour of Clause 15 of the Bill.

I regard the Home Office's attitude to this amendment—the Home Office, as I remember from my days in Whitehall, is not always the most flexible of government departments—as a litmus test of its attitude in general.

We would like to hear much more from the Minister about some of the important issues raised by the three noble Lords, and, in particular, by the excellent contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, on the issue.

So far we have not disputed the establishment of accommodation centres. The Minister is well aware of our approach. There should be a time limit. Asylum seekers should not find themselves in such accommodation centres for more than six months. However, one of the difficulties is the blanket approach that the Government seem to have taken to the matter of education.

I shall cite an example. We must recognise that, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford said, there will he children and young people with different educational needs. We must bear in mind that a substantial number of asylum seekers are well-qualified people—doctors, vets and engineers. They have left their country to seek asylum here because of the persecution that they have suffered. Their children would have been to an educational establishment in their own country and are here only because of the persecution that their parents suffered. How will we arrange for the education of people who have obtained certain qualifications in their homeland? Will we, for example, provide classes in the accommodation centres for youngsters doing something in physics, botany or zoology? It is highly improbable that accommodation centres would have the facilities. That is why it is so important that we recognise the different needs.

We are talking of cases in which it is perfectly possible for youngsters to benefit from mainstream education in the area in which they find themselves. If the Minister or the system were, ultimately, to decide that those families do not qualify to stay in this country, we should try to ensure that, at the least, they return to their homeland with a high opinion of the standard of education that they have received, rather than adopting the broad-brush approach that accommodation centres would provide all the relevant facilities.

That important exception must be made. I hope that the Minister will consider seriously the substantial arguments made by noble Lords about the matter.

I should like to express some concern about the amendment, although I do so with great trepidation and with apologies to the NGOs that have discussed the matter with me. I also apologise to the noble Lords who moved the amendment, for whom I have a high regard.

It seems to me that education in accommodation centres could be safer—safer than some secondary schools that I know—not only for the children but for the parents who would take them to and from school. I say that with knowledge of secondary schools. Such provision could also be more appropriate for children who have, almost certainly, come through a traumatic experience. It ought, of course, to be of a standard equivalent to that in mainstream education. However, it must be for only the short period in which the families seek asylum. The matter is entirely different when such people become refugees.

Like other noble Lords, I have had many letters about the contribution made by refugee children, and I have direct knowledge of it. However, those letters are about refugees. I wonder whether some pressure groups have been confounding refugees with asylum seekers. The noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, used the term "refugee children" when moving his amendment, as did the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford when he quoted the head teachers.

I add two riders to my feeling that education in accommodation centres might be better. First, the education must really be appropriate and be provided by qualified, expert and committed teachers who know about the context of asylum seeking, not by those who cannot get work elsewhere. Secondly, it must last for only a short period. As was said yesterday, six months is too formative a period in a child's life.

I remind noble Lords who referred to the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights that the committee did not come down entirely against education in accommodation centres. The report says that such matters call for careful judgment an d that the new clauses will be useful in various ways. I invite my noble friend the Minister to show such balanced, careful judgment in dealing with the amendment.

I am sure that my noble friend Lord Bhatia is right to say that universal education should mean just that and that no group in our society should be denied it. Those who seek refuge from persecution and arrive on our shores already belong to our society. In contrast, various clauses in the Bill provide for asylum seekers to be left in a kind of limbo of accommodation centres and with another version of education, until they are recognised as refugees.

Children who enjoy a range of rights under the two UN Conventions and our Children Act 1989 would, apparently, be denied those rights because of a perceived failure on the part of their parents, rather than the state. There is a duty on local authorities that goes back to the Education Act 1944, and it should not be interfered with. That point was reinforced by the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland—I see that she is in her place—who, in reply to a Parliamentary Question in January, said that children of asylum seekers and refugees had the same rights of access to the education system in the United Kingdom as any other child. We might argue about the word "system", but I submit that the noble Baroness might well be thought to be sympathetic to the amendment.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford referred to the JCHR report, so I shall not quote from it. However, I refer noble Lords to section 62, on page 24. I recognise that the amendment does not solve the problem of asylum seekers for whom there are no places in local schools. However, the Bill would represent a retrograde step, and I strongly support the amendment.

I must apologise to the Minister. I have an urgent appointment and must leave the debate.

The Government's problem is the size of the centres that they plan to have. There might easily be 50 children descending on a village school. We cannot do that; it would not work. If the centres were smaller, there would be no problem, and I agree with the noble Lord who moved the amendment that that is the ideal solution. There is a problem, and it must be seen from the point of view of the local authorities who run education.

Normally, it would be indefensible for us to create a law that stipulated that a particular group of children was to be prohibited from going to school because of their immigration status. That would be legislating for discrimination. However, in order to understand the Government's proposals, we must consider whether there are compelling reasons that would, none the less, justify having segregated education for the children of asylum seekers.

Many of the Government's arguments in defence of the policy are flawed and inconsistent. On the one hand, they say that they want to promote the integration of asylum seekers; on the other, they develop a policy that is in stark contradiction to that, proposing to segregate children in accommodation centres. On the one hand, they say that they want schools to be inclusive; on the other, they say that a particular group of children is not allowed to go to school. On the one hand, they say that the quality and nature of the education in accommodation centres will mirror that in schools; on the other hand, they say that it has not yet been decided whether the teachers in accommodation centres will even be required to complete initial teacher training or whether the full national curriculum will be available.

I shall put aside those flaws and contradictions, for the moment. A better starting point for objective consideration of the issues would be to apply the test that flows logically from the justification for trialling accommodation centres that the Minister provided yesterday. I shall paraphrase what he said when he spoke of accommodation centres being the best way of providing the support that asylum seekers need while waiting for their applications for asylum to be speedily determined.

Extrapolating from those remarks, the crisp issue in relation to education is whether segregated education is the best way of providing the support that the children of asylum seekers need. Certainly the major children's charities and teaching unions that have the practical experience of teaching refugee children do not think so. In recent weeks the major children's charities and teachers' unions have been saying repeatedly and unequivocally that children seeking asylum are better off in mainstream schools where they can gain the full benefits of the richness and value of social interaction with peers and can enjoy fully the social and developmental dimensions of the school experience so vital to their well-being.

Another message emerging from schools with refugee children is that their presence benefits all children by helping them to learn in practice—not just in theory—about tolerance, respect and diversity. The head teacher of a school with a significant proportion of refugee children among the pupils has been quoted by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford. Another headmaster, this time of a secondary school in south Camden, says:

"I believe the most appropriate place for refugee students to be educated from the time of their arrival is in mainstream schools. I am very proud of the asylum seeking children we have in our school. They contribute a great deal to our school and I very much respect their commitment to education and their parents' commitment to their children's education".

Nobody is trying to argue that the inclusion of children seeking asylum in mainstream schools does not present a substantial challenge to individual schools, teachers and local education authorities. But it is worth remembering that the inclusion of other groups of children, such as homeless children and those whose first language is not English, can bring similar challenges. We have successfully found ways of rising to those challenges. Surely we have all reached a common understanding over the years that the answer is not to segregate groups of children who are viewed as problematic, but rather to share the good practice that has been developed and to work closely with schools and teachers to ensure that adequate and appropriate strategies and resources are in place. A different approach in the case of children seeking asylum sets a dangerous and undesirable precedent.

The National Union of Teachers states:

"The Home Secretary's proposals are a denial of every tenet of education and equality legislation".

The union argues that education within the confines of an accommodation centre cannot equal the range of provision within a school or education authority. It is possible that at any one time in an accommodation centre, there will be children who range from the under-lives to primary, secondary and post-16s. No school in the United Kingdom could replicate that range of provision, let alone an accommodation centre.

The Government have said that the nature and quality of education provided in accommodation centres will be comparable to that of schools. I wish to explore that. I should be grateful if the Minister would provide more information on the following questions. What qualifications will teaching staff in accommodation centres be required to have? What types of support staff will there be in accommodation centres? Will they include educational psychologists and youth workers, for example? What vocational courses will be available to young people aged over 14?

I have further questions for the Minister. What are the estimated costs of setting up and running accommodation centres and, separately, what are the costs of setting up and running the educational services that must be provided? How do those education costs compare with the costs of refugee children attending mainstream schools? It may be that solely in the light of those costs and ignoring the important principles that have been outlined a better way of supporting the children of asylum seekers would be to subsidise the mainstream schools they could attend which, in turn, would overcome all the other problems that exclusion from such schools will generate.

In conclusion, I cannot resist the temptation to refer to another experiment in tailoring courses for a particular group of underprivileged people, which happened in South Africa. I do not compare for a moment the motivation of this Government with that of the South African Government which led to the lack of education for a vast sector of the population. But the lesson to be learned from that regime is that there is great danger in setting precedents in education for particular groups of people. I support the amendment.

I say immediately that I share the care and concern expressed on all sides of the Chamber about the education of the children of asylum seekers who are placed in accommodation centres while their applications for asylum are dealt with. I underline that because the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, have confused the debate to the extent that the terms "refugee children" and "asylum children" have been used as if they were interchangeable, which they are not.

It is as well that the Committee reminds itself that the purpose of accommodation centres is not the education of the children within them. I say that not in a brutal way. The reason for discussing the establishment of accommodation centres is to provide safe and secure accommodation for people, including families, while their applications for asylum are considered and appeals subsequent to such applications are dealt with. The mathematics, as I calculate them, are that the stay in an accommodation centre will be between 16 weeks and a maximum of 26 weeks, with many families arriving when local schools are closed in any event—for six or seven weeks in the summer, for example, and at intermittent periods throughout the year.

We must focus on the purpose of accommodation centres and swiftly afterwards concentrate on the best way of attending to the educational needs of the children of those who have made an asylum application. Without seeking to cause offence, I have to say that we are not talking about a family discussion as the education of our sons and daughters, or grandsons and grand-daughters is being planned and we decide where they will go to school. We are dealing with adults and children who, under the 1951 convention, have been forced into the hands of people smugglers. In order to make an application for asylum in the United Kingdom, we insist that people travel half-way across the planet, putting themselves at the mercy of people smugglers. Your Lordships have heard me say before that it is a crazy way to run a system, but that is another matter and does not arise on this amendment.

Some, if not all, of the parents and children to whom the amendment refers will have spent many weeks, or several months in some cases, being smuggled and ferried across international borders at least half-way across the planet. That is the state in which those adults and children arrive in this country.

If the noble Lord, Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, wants to discourage people traffickers, as I do, would he not be more effective by attacking carriers' liability than by segregating the children of their victims?

Certainly not. That is an entirely different issue. Members of the Committee may have heard me try to argue my view that under the 1951 convention, applications for asylum should be made in the first safe country in which the asylum seeker finds himself and dealt with by the diplomatic posts in that country. But that is another matter.

I was describing the dreadful state in which such children and their parent or parents arrive in this country and are sent to accommodation centres. They will remain in the centres for between 16 and 26 weeks. What then is the point of saying, "Yes, go into the nearest local school, but if your application is refused, and if that is confirmed on appeal, you will be out of that school"? That further change is avoidable if they are educated properly in accordance with the national curriculum, as my noble friend will confirm will happen. After all, these children have already experienced turmoil and disturbance over several months. That is an argument for the establishment of the accommodation centres. A further strong argument is that those who reside in them have time to become accustomed to new and different surroundings.

At that stage, the children are not refugees; they are the children of asylum seekers. There is no reason why the education provided in accommodation centres for that short period should be isolated from that being delivered in local schools. In fact, there is every good reason why every attempt should be made to foster links between local schools and the children in the centres. I am sure that that is the view of teachers, too.

We are losing sight of the fact that we are dealing with children who have not had regular experience of education. That is not for one minute a reason to deny them proper educational provision, but it is not as though they are moving school from Durham to Surrey. Most of the children come from extremely deprived circumstances and, if recent events in Afghanistan were anything to go by, the girls were banned from attending school.

We should concentrate on getting the education delivered within the accommodation centres right during the relatively brief period in which the children are expected to be there, rather than assuming that they will suddenly become refugee children and be denied mainstream education. That is not the Government's intention.

I approach this difficult question on the premise that it will be better for a child in an accommodation centre to be educated in the local school than in the centre. The noble Lord, Lord Corbett, knows a great deal about these matters and was a distinguished chairman of the All-Party Home Affairs Committee in the other place. However, I was disturbed by his speech because it leads to the conclusion that because many of the children have had a rough and rotten deal for many months, they shall be exposed to a rough deal in the context of education for up to 26 weeks.

No!

That is a conclusion, if my initial premise is correct. The noble Lord said that it is not the purpose of the centres to educate the children. I agree that the primary purpose is to give them somewhere safe to live. But an extension of that argument might be that it is not the purpose of the centres to maintain the children's health if we do not propose to exclude them from the local hospitals.

In that regard, I object to the fact that the Bill makes it mandatory that no such child shall attend the local maintained school. A Member of the Committee—I have forgotten who—said today that we are trialling accommodation centres. That echoed what the Minister said yesterday. With customary frankness, the Minister said that the Government are not certain that they have got everything right, but let us give them a trial. That was in the context of the numbers of people the centres were to contain. Why do we not carry out a trial of allowing the children to go to the local schools?

The provision need not be mandatory, because of course there are problems. My noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour pointed out a most important one; that in some schools there is not sufficient accommodation. That will not always be the case. Indeed, we heard significant second-hand evidence from head teachers about the advantages to the schools and their pupils of having the children attend.

I ask merely that the Government should think again about the matter. They should delete the mandatory prohibition and, in proper cases after proper consultation, allow children to attend mainstream schools. That is all I ask. The arguments I have heard so far have not persuaded me in favour of maintaining the Bill as it is.

I strongly support the amendment. I make a plea as one whose professional career has been in the care of sick children. The number of children likely to be housed in accommodation centres, as calculated by the right reverend Prelate and confirmed by the Minister, is small. They are not all of the same age. However, it is important to appreciate that all the children have been subjected to psychological trauma. They will continue to be segregated from other children in the community, whom they will see on the streets. I understand that the centres will not be behind barbed wire. Segregating them from a normal school environment will merely prolong their sense of isolation and psychological trauma.

Most of the children in accommodation centres are likely to stay there for up to six months, unless the Minister has plans to shorten the period. If one of the considerations relates to the security and safely of asylum seekers, surely keeping children away from school will not help. Allowing them to attend a mainstream school in a normal environment will have two advantages. First, they will recover from their psychological trauma more rapidly. Secondly, they will meet normal children. Their parents will certainly not abscond, because they and the children live together in the centres.

However, even more important is the consideration of our high reputation for fair and humane treatment of all people in this country. The Government's proposals will deal that reputation a severe blow. If we are found to be segregating the children of asylum seekers, where is the reputation for fair and humane treatment? The welfare of all children, irrespective of their status, surely must be kept uppermost in any arrangements we make for asylum seekers in this country.

Finally, when the trial on the four accommodation centres commences—I agree with the comment made a little earlier—we should place at least one or two children in normal schools, even if we did want a group to be educated within the centre.

Most important, I hope that the Minister will be able to give us an assurance that the results of this experiment will be analysed. As I have said, the issue with regard to children that should be considered as uppermost is their welfare. That is of paramount importance.

If I had been addressing a medieval congregation rather than a modern House of Lords, I would have found the notion of the noble Lord, Lord Moser, being prevented from attending a mainstream school—and then being greeted by a roar of anger from the heavens—an irresistible subject for a sermon. However, I do not intend to preach a sermon, but I shall treasure that as one of the nicest moments of drama that I have heard in this House.

The proposers of the amendment have made a very powerful case. I refer in particular to the questions asked by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford. He referred to the disapplication of much of our education legislation, covering teacher qualifications and so forth. They will require a deal of response. On the other hand, I was also extremely interested in the right reverend Prelate's arithmetic. He assumed that there would be 35 children in each centre, which is not unreasonable. If we presume that a range of subjects is to be taught, then more than one teacher will need to be available. That will create a pupil:teacher ratio which will be the gross envy of the indigenous population outside. The difficulties of the argument "separate but equal" should work both ways.

The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, is rapidly becoming the conscience of the House on this Bill. He expressed a dislike of segregated education, which I believe we all feel. But on the first day of our deliberations he also expressed a dislike of accommodation centres, which I also feel. My late friend Lady Seear, when addressing a Liberal summer school on ethics in politics, once commented that, in politics, the problem is always trying to choose the lesser of two evils. That is why we on these Benches will reserve our position until we have heard and probed what the Minister has to say on the forthcoming government Amendment No. 114A, containing a regulation-making power to fix the length of time that people may be required to stay in an accommodation centre. That is because our highest priority is to keep the time during which people are consigned to a centre as short as possible, a wish also expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker. We hope that six months will mean six months.

I felt somewhat disappointed on reading the Minister's response to a point put by my noble friend Lord Greaves last night while I had a belated bite of supper after our debates on the regulations. He appeared to assume that in all cases it would be necessary to detain people in accommodation centres for as long as their cases and appeals were pending. I hope that that is not to be his final word on the matter. If it were, then on Report it would affect very materially indeed our position on this amendment.

If people can be taken out of accommodation centres within six months, then I think that we might be induced to tolerate the Government's proposals. But were there to be a serious slippage in that position, we would have to reserve our opinion and think through the whole thing again.

Meanwhile, by far the most practical and helpful speech of the debate was that made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden. If there is to be a way forward, I hope that the Minister will consider whether perhaps that might be the direction in which the way might lie.

If she is to reply to the debate, could the Minister elaborate on the proposals put forward by her noble friend Lord Corbett to establish links with local schools. How would such links be promoted? Where would the funding be found for them? What would be the specific intention with regard to sporting and other activities between local schools and accommodation centres? I would find that information extremely helpful.

Perhaps I may pursue a little further the question of arithmetic. If the right reverend Prelate is right in his assumption that, of the 750 inmates in each accommodation centre only 35 will be children, then 18 per cent of those children would be released into mainstream education after two months; that is, at the point at which their families' applications were successful. According to the arithmetic detailed yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, a further 10 per cent would then be released after a further four months; that is, at the point at which their families were successful on appeal. So we are not referring to 35 children spending the whole six months in the accommodation centre, but to a gradually diminishing number as families are successful in their applications. Thus my noble friend Lord Greaves was correct to point out that the final outcome would be that, if 50 per cent of the cases were successful, then by the end of six months only some 17 children would be left in the accommodation centre. How will adequate education for a handful of children be provided across the whole age range that might be represented in a particular centre?

That question leads me to put the following question to the Minister: is it to be the Government's policy to distribute the families evenly over the four accommodation centres, or will single people be housed preferentially in two or three centres, reserving the fourth centre for families? A much greater concentration of children would then be achieved in one centre. In so doing, it would be possible to provide better educational facilities than if the resources to be made available for this purpose had to be spread across four different centres. We have not discussed this point, but surely it would be sensible to concentrate the necessarily limited resources in a smaller number of centres rather than seek to provide adequate arrangements in all four of them.

I wish to put a further question to the Minister. It arises out of the undertaking given in response to the criticisms voiced by the Joint Committee on Human Rights to the effect that the success of accommodation centres in their efforts to provide education for the children residing in them should be one of the criteria to be considered when evaluating the initial trial. In pursuance of that undertaking, will the Government give a further undertaking to the Committee that if, at the end of the trial, they find that the outcomes for the children are less favourable than they would have been had they been provided with mainstream education, they will review the whole policy? That would meet the logic of what they said to the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

The powerful speeches made by my noble friends Lord Bhatia and Lord Moser have thrown light on the difficult question of discrimination. We have all found that a most disagreeable aspect of what is involved here. Perhaps I may suggest a rather more practical approach when considering the problems faced by children as they arrive with their parents at the accommodation centres. If they are to make progress, then their greatest single need is to acquire some knowledge of English.

In my family it happens that we have some experience of those difficulties. Some 20 years ago, when I was posted to work in the Foreign Office in London, my wife qualified as a teacher in English as a foreign language in order to make a contribution to the family income. Subsequently she taught for a year or so in a GLC school. When listening to her account of the way in which those classes were conducted, it became apparent that there is a very particular art to teaching English to a group of people who have one thing in common: they do not know our language.

I suggest that it might be a focus of whatever educational activities take place in these accommodation centres to equip the children with a sufficient knowledge of our language. In that way, if they have to stay there for a long time they could then be transferred to local schools where they could be absorbed into school life and have a normal school education. I hope that this suggestion will help.

We all have considerable sympathy for the Government because of the sheer size of the problem they face and the numbers involved. Obviously there are tremendous advantages in having accommodation centres with, perhaps, temporary courts alongside so that rights are protected, and so on, but I agree with my noble friend Lord Bridges that it is absolutely essential that English is taught in the accommodation centres from the word go. The possibility for learning English should be available.

I strongly support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Bhatia. When children have suffered to the extent that these children will have suffered—and, let us face it, we cannot be sure that the period we are talking about will be only six months; we know how things drag on—it must make sense to put families with children in separate areas, smaller areas if possible, where the children can go to local schools. This is a crucial area. We must be able to accommodate them and we must know that there is space for them in such schools. Only this morning I heard about one part of the United Kingdom which is so overcrowded with looked-after children that the local area is not able to cope. I know that will be of concern to the Secretary of State for Education.

I firmly support the amendment. I hope that the Government can assure us that the considerable concerns that have been raised and the pleas that have been made will be listened to and taken into account.

I plead with the Government to show flexibility in their approach. After all, some asylum-seeking children or children of asylum seekers may well speak fluent English and have a reasonable educational attainment. They could move into a local school, if it is not too far away, seamlessly and quickly. Others would not be able to cope with a local school because they would need to learn English first, as has been said.

In some instances the accommodation centre may be close to local schools, which could take some of the children; in other instances the accommodation centre may be too far away. We should be flexible. Where children can move to a local school as soon as possible, they should; where there is no appropriate local school or the children's English is not good enough, they should stay and receive their education in the accommodation centre. In that way we can move forward in the best interests of the children.

I am grateful to—

It is appropriate that I should speak at this time. We have now had more than an hour's debate on a very important issue and it is right that the Opposition Front Bench should state its position. It has come across very clearly that all noble Lords have firmly at the front of their minds the welfare of the child, and there has been some debate about how that may best be achieved. We have made it clear in the past—we do so again—that many of the problems highlighted so carefully and clearly today could be resolved if the Government would reconsider the way they are going to structure accommodation centres, so that the processing of applications would be far brisker and would leave the children in education in those centres for a much shorter time.

We acknowledge that the longer children remain in accommodation centres the more difficult it becomes to maintain the argument that they should be educated there. Who can fail to be impressed by the number of teachers and parents who have written to noble Lords to say how they would welcome children into their schools? That surely shows what a tolerant society we are trying to build in this country, and succeeding in many respects.

There has been reference to the suggestion of my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden. As ever, I pay tribute to his ability to think of a practical new approach. He suggested that the Government might trial a system whereby children could go to local schools because accommodation centres in themselves are projects and not finished products.

I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, referred to the distinction between asylum children and refugee children as though the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford was perhaps using the wrong term. As regards the distinction between asylum-seeking children and refugee children, can the Minister confirm that the 1951 convention defines refugees as those outside their country with a well-founded fear of persecution, and that NGOs therefore use the term in its broadest sense while the Government use it in its narrowest, legalistic sense? Is it correct that the Government cannot grant refugee status but can only recognise it? That is important given that the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, raised a question in regard to that definition.

I congratulate—

Perhaps I may now reply to the debate.

I have been trying to intervene. I can speak after the Minister if he wishes, but I would rather speak before the Minister so that he can answer my questions.

Very well.

I am grateful. I congratulate the mover of the amendment on allowing this important debate to take place, particularly at this time of day. As to numbers, if the figures the Minister gave last night are correct—that perhaps 40 per cent of people in an accommodation centre of 750 residents will be either asylum seekers who are heads of families or members of those families—then the number of children in such centres could be 200 or perhaps higher. Can the Minister clarify the numbers we are talking about because it will make a great deal of difference?

The debate today has been polarised. I support the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and, I think, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that more flexibility is required. What is possible will depend on the size and location of the accommodation centres. If you have a centre of 750 in the countryside, with 200 or 300 children in that centre, it will be impossible for them to attend local schools. The location and the size of the centre will be absolutely critical.

Another critical factor is the amount of time people will spend in the accommodation centres. In the debate last night periods of two months, six months and so on were mentioned. I understand all the points that have been put forward, but it seems to me that children who do not possess English would benefit from separate education within the accommodation centre for a limited period of time—perhaps two months—which might indeed be in the summer when ordinary schools are closed.

What will be the curriculum for these children? To talk of the national curriculum in such circumstances is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether they can be given a course which concentrates heavily on the learning of English so that if they then move on into the community the children will have those English skills and will be at a much greater advantage when going into ordinary mainstream schools.

If, unfortunately, from their point of view, they have to be removed and returned to their countries of origin, they will have a facility in basic English which will benefit them for the rest of their lives. The point of view that under no circumstances should these children be educated in accommodation centres is wrong, provided that they receive only an initial course which does not last very long. In my view, six months would be too long.

My final point relates to staffing. It is very important that these centres are staffed by qualified teachers, paid on ordinary teacher scales. Their jobs, in what will be akin to continuous reception classes, may be considered more onerous, if that is possible, than those of teachers in ordinary primary school nowadays. Will the staff be qualified teachers, will they be paid at least on the ordinary pay scales for qualified teachers and will the LEAs have a role? Provision is made in later clauses for the School Inspections Act 1996 to apply. What will be the precise role of Ofsted or other bodies in inspecting the facilities provided by the accommodation centres?

We have today, as yesterday, had an important debate on an important subject. I regret that I shall have to cover briefly some of the issues that we debated yesterday, because many Members of the Committee who have spoken today were not present when we discussed the broader picture of accommodation centres. However, I shall try to be succinct.

I begin by addressing, as far as I am able, the reality of the situation that the Government and society are seeking to manage. If I have to make one or two generalisations, I hope that I shall be forgiven. We are referring to families with children who arrive in the UK asking for refugee status that has not yet been granted. If they ask for support, by definition they are without shelter or security, will often have come a long way and will be in fear and perhaps traumatised. They arrive in difficult circumstances, and one can well imagine that the children of such families will be distressed or in turmoil. They form a diverse group. One cannot sensibly generalise about what refugee children are like. They have often had interrupted or limited education, or none at all, although there will obviously be exceptions. There has also been evidence that they have experienced some bullying when in mainstream schools in certain areas of Britain.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, put down a challenge. The current system is that when they apply for support, they are moved initially into emergency accommodation, with or without schooling, for perhaps one or two weeks, until dispersed accommodation is sought for them, where they stay for however long it takes for their asylum applications and any appeals that they choose to exercise to be determined. If they are successful in their applications for refugee status or exceptional leave to remain, they are allowed to settle in the country permanently, or for as long as their ELR lasts. Without labouring the point, that system is evidently not perfect in a number of respects.

The central argument about accommodation centres, on which we had a good debate yesterday—I regret yet again boring the Front-Benchers—concerns whether it is possible to accelerate the decision-making timetable rapidly for refugee families by putting them into accommodation centres in ways that give them access to proper decision-making processes, legal support for their applications and fair hearings, and at the same time provide them with better support so that they receive fair decisions much more quickly than has been the case to date. The Government accept the challenge of considering whether, by managing accommodation centres well, they can achieve those objectives.

The relationship of accommodation centres to the education of children is fairly clear. First, if by that process we can rapidly determine that someone has refugee status—in cases determined on initial application, we expect to be able to do that within two months or less—they will then be integrated immediately into British society, as we all wish and accept. Secondly, while children are in accommodation centres, one can provide them with a supportive environment and the quality of education that is at least as good as they would experience in dispersed accommodation in the rest of Britain. I do not intend to oversell the case. The Government believe that there is strong evidence that we can do that.

However, we have also said that this is a pilot scheme. We have said that we shall monitor the process through the first four centres and evaluate it carefully to see whether that hypothesis is true. If it is, it will serve the interests both of the parents, because they will have a faster affirmative or negative determination—whether affirmative or negative, it is better that it should be faster than not—and of the children, who can be moved on while they have had some beneficial educational experience. That is the challenge.

Other challenges have been made in the debate. Yesterday, we discussed the potential benefit of accommodation centres providing a more supportive environment for families and children because of the concentration of support and services in that area. Let me deal with some of the educational aspects of that. First, the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, asked whether the DfES and other parts of the Government had been involved. The categorical answer is that they have. Officials have worked closely together. My noble friend Lady Ashton of Upholland shares my view that accommodation centres have a great potential to offer a better quality of education and support for children than would be the case in dispersed accommodation.

The Government are obliged to provide the national curriculum for any child of school age in this country, but have the freedom to target the way in which it is delivered, better to meet the particular circumstances of a number of children who may have very limited English or have suffered some trauma as a result of their recent experiences. Ofsted's writ will apply specifically to accommodation centres. It will inspect and report on quality and provision, as with mainstream schools. If an inspection report highlights concerns about a centre, it will be required to produce an action plan. Even if there are no concerns, it will be expected to produce an action plan on how it intends to take provision forward. There will be no escape. These educational facilities will be the subject of proper public scrutiny.

The noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, suggested that the accommodation centres may have a long-term detrimental effect on children. I strongly doubt that. The centre managers will employ qualified teachers. There will be a commitment to monitoring, both through Ofsted and through the Department for Education and Skills' monitoring processes. The objective is to make them centres of excellence for the provision of education for groups of distressed children who, if their applications are accepted, are in the process of transition between their own societies and becoming settled into our mainstream society.

The current arrangements for dispersal put children under pressure. They are often thrown in at the deep end, without preparation. One needs to take a child's-eye view of that. We believe that putting them into accommodation centres for what in many cases will be a very short period may give them breathing space, targeted support, language training and an education that they would not otherwise have received.

I have answered the question of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford about qualified teachers. He also asked about the role of the LEAs. The Bill specifies a number of ways in which the role of the LEAs will still exist. However, we expect a partnership to be formed with LEAs on how to take forward that role.

I was also asked about numbers, some of which we gave yesterday. These are early days, but a rough-and-ready assumption is that there could be between 120 and 150 children in an accommodation centre of this type. A further suggestion was made as to whether it might make sense to concentrate all, or many, children in one centre. That is an interesting idea on which, without commitment, we shall reflect in an effort to decide whether such a suggestion is worthy of consideration.

Challenges have been made as to whether the Government are compliant with CRC guidelines. We believe that placing children in accommodation centres is in their best interests. If the family is successful in its application, the process will be speeded up and integrated faster. That is significant. If the family is not successful, there is no case for integration. Indeed, if the application is unsuccessful, the family will unfortunately have to leave Britain. We do not believe that it is in the interests of the child to be moved into a school, or two or three schools—as I instanced could be the case through dispersal—and then have to leave again because the claim and the subsequent appeal have been rejected.

I turn to the questions raised on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child as regards Article 28 and Article 3. We are not denying an education; we shall be mirroring the nature of education in mainstream schools. The quality and standard will be the same, and Ofsted inspected. I believe that I have covered most of those points.

We are not talking about ghettos; these centres are an attempt by a civilised society to try to manage a process with both humanity and care in an effort to provide the level of care and education support at least to the standard that is possible. If we are right in that aim, as I said yesterday, these centres will be a beacon of quality across Europe. We shall show that it is possible to manage this difficult problem better than is currently the case in Britain or elsewhere.

The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, referred to the wide range of schools. I grant his point. Clearly, a wide range of ages and, indeed, a wide range of schools will be involved. It is perhaps a model based on smaller village schools that currently deal most effectively with children representing a range of ages and abilities. Clause 32 also provides for children with very specialised needs to be educated outside the unit, subject to certain conditions, as we believe should be the case.

Mention was made of teachers in these centres. In so far as there is evidence, it shows that these centres will be likely to attract good teachers. Often refugee children, asylum children, are keen to learn and are highly motivated. Of course, one should not generalise, but there is some truth in what I say. It is quite a satisfactory teaching experience. Therefore, we do not envisage any problem with attracting good teachers who are keen to participate in the process.

The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, quite rightly highlighted the current burden on schools in some areas. From the evidence supplied by the University of London, it appears that this is as much about the churning effect that takes place; in other words, the constant moving. I shall not go into detail at this stage because time is pressing. However, there is good evidence to show the burden that that places on the school—its teachers and management; and, indeed, on other children—without in any sense seeking to label asylum seekers' children as problems.

The noble Lord, Lord Joffe, asked about teacher qualifications. Clearly, there will be a necessity for support staff. Some vocational courses will be available for adults. No doubt older children could take part in such courses after school. As regards costs comparisons, we are at the beginning of a procurement process. Therefore, for confidentiality reasons, I cannot put such information into the public domain. But, broadly speaking, we imagine that the costs should be comparable with the current cost of running education in normal situations.

I was asked about the involvement of parents. Again, accommodation centres provide considerable potential for that to take place. The noble Lord, .Lord Chan, asked about experimentation and whether it would be evaluated. I reiterate that it will be so. All our discussion yesterday was about four centres initially that we shall evaluate to see whether they provide faster decision-making. A crucial part of that process will be to ascertain whether there is evidence to show that children do at least as well in terms of their educational and their emotional support, as would have taken place if they had followed the existing routes of dispersal. I can also assure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, that that will be done.

We should also recognise that we have the basis for such an evaluation. There is an alternative system in terms of a dispersal model. There are currently 62,000 asylum children in London alone who are waiting for the result of their decision processes, or for exceptional leave to remain. Therefore, we already have a comparison in that respect.

Perhaps I may ask my noble friend the Minister a question. He referred to Clause 32 and specifically to "specialised needs". I cannot understand where that clause relates to special needs. It refers to "special cases", but not special needs. It seems to me that the intention of the clause is to provide an over-ride on the general provisions in this area of the Bill.

When we debate the clause, I am sure that we will inspect that aspect in more detail. In essence, the clause provides the opportunity for an identification of whether children have special needs; and, therefore, whether alternative provision for them might be appropriate.

I turn to the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about the period of six or three months. I am not certain that I have seized the challenge that the noble Earl put to me. However, I believe that we are at one in wishing to ensure that the Home Secretary's commitment given in the other place, which we shall be introducing in a later amendment, is both clear and firm. In short, there will be a reassessment if a family is still in the centre at the six-month point. That process will seek to consider the interest of the child. If the family is still in the unit at the end of nine months, it would, if it wished, have a right to move elsewhere, irrespective of the stage of the appeal.

I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. In that case, the question from this side of the Committee would be whether at the end of six months the children would be released into mainstream education.

Possibly, but not automatically, is the response to that query. It would depend on the conclusion of the assessment.

As ever, I am guided by higher, distant forces. I am advised that I should be referring to Clause 31, rather than Clause 32. One can always count on the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, to catch one out on these issues.

The noble Lord, Lord Corbett, spoke powerfully on fostering links with local schools. Although education will be provided in the centre, one should have an open mind as to the benefits of actual linkages with the wider society and with other schools. It would be both interesting and helpful to see how that could be developed.

The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked whether there would be a biased intake as regards families. I have touched on that as a question, and will leave it there. The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, mentioned sufficient knowledge of language, which is totally germane. One is talking about a particular group of people whose common characteristic, apart from not knowing much about Britain, will be that most of them will not speak English well. Therefore, a short period—even a two-month period—in a school with intensive English training would be of benefit of them, whether or not they were accepted for refugee status.

I am aware that I am exceeding the patience of the Committee. It is almost impossible to answer all the points raised. However, we shall have plenty of other opportunities to discuss such matters. I look forward to taking forward this policy in its development with my noble friend Lady Ashton of Upholland. We are committed to the belief that this is in the interests of both families and children. We accept the challenge to demonstrate that that is true in practice, and the evaluation will allow us to do so.

The Minister answered my question as to whether qualified teachers would be employed. However, he did not say whether all the teachers who would be employed would have to be qualified. Can the Minister clarify that point? Further, I do not believe that the noble Lord answered my question about whether the teachers employed in these centres would be paid on pay scales/rates commensurate with those that apply to similar teachers in mainstream schools.

Yes, and I do not know.

I do not wish to delay the debate any further. However, I should like to thank Members of the Committee for participating in the debate. It is good to take account of the variety of views expressed on all sides of the Committee. I hope that the Minister will take heed of all the views that have been put forward.

Before I conclude the debate I wish to refer to two or three of the points that were raised. It is necessary to draw the Minister's attention to a debate that took place in the other place on 22nd May during which the Minister, Stephen Timms, said that no decision had been taken as to whether those who would be teaching in the accommodation centres for asylum seekers would be required to have completed initial teachers' training. As things have obviously moved on, I should like an assurance that that is the case.

There were various comments on the length of time in which people will stay in the accommodation centres, and various figures—three months, six months, two months—were mentioned. However, I think that most of the major children's charities believe that a week out of school is a week lost. A critical principle is at stake here. Should there be universal access to mainstream schools? If the answer is that, in principle, access should be universal, the matter of length of stay is neither here nor there.

Whatever we decide, we should think first and foremost about children and their emotional and educational needs. I make only one plea. Let us think about the children who will be in the accommodation centres as if they were our own children. By taking such an approach we might arrive at the right decision. Because of my personal experience—which, 30 years on, I do not wish to think about or remember—I concluded that I had to move this amendment. I hope that those of us deciding this law will think of children and their needs before anything else.

The Minister's answers are good enough for now, but I await the Government's proposals at Report stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows: "With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a Statement in responding to the Home Affairs Select Committee report on drugs. In doing so, I wish to make it clear that I will publish a substantial update of the 1998 drugs strategy this autumn.

"On 23rd October, in my evidence to the Select Committee, I laid out a number of key themes which are reflected in the Committee's report. I am grateful for the excellent work which the Chairman and Members of the Committee have done and to all those who have assisted both the Committee and myself, including my drugs unit. I also thank the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and the many agencies and authoritative bodies who have contributed.

"I cannot imagine that there is a Member of this House who does not wish to ensure that those we represent are free from the misery that is caused by drug abuse. Class A drugs are the scourge of our time and are potential killers. Over the past 30 years the huge increase in the use of drugs, particularly hard drugs, has caused untold damage to the health, life chances and wellbeing of individuals. This has undermined family life, fuelled criminality and damaged communities. The estimated social and economic costs of drug misuse are well in excess of £10 billion a year. Around three quarters of crack and heroin users claim to be committing crime to feed their habit.

"I am grateful for the considerable progress made by my predecessors. I am also grateful to the Secretary of State for Health for the announcement we are able to make today of an additional investment, which will total £183 million over the next three years, for treatment services and harm minimisation. The numbers entering treatment have increased by an average of 8 per cent each year since 1998. In 2000, seizures worth £780 million were made. Last year, 3.4 tonnes of heroin and 10.9 tonnes of cocaine were seized, exceeding targets.

"Today, I wish to inform the House of the overall direction of the review of the drugs strategy and the Committee's report. There will be an increased focus on class A drugs. The message is clear. Drugs are dangerous. We will educate, persuade, and, where necessary, direct young people away from their use. We will not legalise or decriminalise any drug, nor do we envisage a time when this would be appropriate.

"As recommended by the Committee, there will be a better focus on those whose drug addiction causes the most harm to themselves and to society; those described as problematic drug users. In the past two years, we have established the National Treatment Agency and invested more than half a billion pounds. We have begun to fill the gaps in services for crack addicts. We will continue the rapid expansion of referral for treatment of offenders.

"We accept that expansion in managed prescribing for the most appropriate cases of heroin addiction will be necessary; the right treatment for the right patient. But more than treatment is required. Aftercare and rehabilitation must become part of the package of care for those leaving treatment, or from prison. Harm minimisation will be given greater priority. But in the form in which the term is normally used, we are not persuaded that shooting galleries would, at this moment, be helpful.

"We will use the powers in the Proceeds of Crime Bill to confiscate the assets of those whose lifestyle depends on the misery of others and target the regional or 'middle' drug markets. We will clamp down on the dealers who prey on the young. We will increase the sentences for trafficking and dealing in class B and C drugs to 14 years. This will avoid mixed messages to those dealing in more than one drug, and will establish a lead in European-wide discussions. But we do not agree that it is necessary to introduce a supply for gain offence.

"We will support parents and families to help them cope with the effects of addiction. In line with the Committee's recommendation, we will ensure that carers and families are involved in the development of services. We will launch an education campaign targeted at young people with the message that all drugs are harmful and class A drugs are killers. We are not persuaded that ecstasy should be downgraded; it can kill. However, the message to young people and families must be open, honest and believable. That is why I asked the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to review the classification of cannabis.

"They have recommended that the current classification is disproportionate in relation to harmfulness and the nature of other con trolled drugs. They were clear, and so am I, that cannabis is a potentially harmful drug and should remain illegal. However, it is not comparable with crack, heroin, or ecstasy. They were clear that greater differentiation between drugs which kill and drugs that cause harm would be both scientifically justified and educationally sensible.

"I have considered this advice along with the recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee. I have taken account of the Metropolitan Police experiment in Lambeth, which has seen a 10 per cent increase in the arrest of class A drug dealers. The Metropolitan Police will today announce that the pilot will be adjusted and will be applicable across London in the months ahead. I can tell the House that I will seek to reclassify cannabis as a class C drug by July of next year.

"Let me be clear: cannabis possession remains a criminal offence. I am determined that the police are able to control the streets and uphold order. They will be able to arrest for possession where public order is threatened or where children are at risk. The Association of Chief Police Officers will shortly issue national guidance to ensure that in the vast majority of cases officers will confiscate the drug and issue a warning. Police time saved will be refocused on class A drug dealing.

"Where communities are strong, drugs do not take hold. Drug-related crime and disorder devastate communities. That is why last year we launched the communities against drugs fund to provide £220 million over three years to enable communities to become part of the solution. It is the vulnerable who succumb to drugs. Statutory and voluntary agencies, families and communities all have a role to play in protecting them.

"Through education, harm minimisation, treatment and tough action against dealers and traffickers, we have a winning strategy. It will require positive commitment, rather than grandstanding. Last October, I called for a mature and intelligent debate. I hope that this is what we can continue to have. I hope that, in moving this Statement today, we continue that sensible approach to a difficult and sensitive issue. I commend the Statement to the House".

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. His closing words are absolutely right; it is very much a sensitive issue. However, the House will recognise that it is indeed an extraordinary Statement made on an extraordinary day.

There are two coherent strategies on cannabis. The Government, in the Statement today, choose not to adopt either of them. I recognise that a serious argument can be made for complete legalisation of cannabis with sale being taken out of the hands of the drug dealers and the substance being treated like tobacco or alcohol, licensed and taxed. It is not an argument to which I subscribe. The alternative policy which we prefer can be constructed—as it is in Sweden—to make serious efforts to lead young people away from cannabis use. The Government have not adopted either of those courses. In fact, they are giving control over cannabis to the drug dealers, but with the police turning away.

This is not just the day on which the Home Secretary made a Statement about a muddled and dangerous policy; today is also the day when the Government's chief adviser on drugs, Mr Keith Hellawell, resigned in protest at that muddled and dangerous policy. He told the "Today" programme that,

"this is causing a great deal of problems on the streets. It's causing a great deal of problems for parents who just don't know where they are".

Commenting later on the Home Secretary's Brixton experiment, Mr Hellawell said that it had become "open season" for those peddling drugs.

I invite the Minister to explain whether the Government intend that the police should arrest people who are openly selling cannabis—as they are on the streets of Brixton today—or whether they are asking the police to look away. I remind the Minister what local people think of the experiment in Brixton. The Reverend Chris Andre-Watson, youth group leader at Brixton Baptist Church, said on 5th July this year,

"This area has become saturated with cannabis and we even have drug dealing going on outside playgrounds. Young people feel that cannabis has been legalised".

Why are the Government introducing a system whereby they say, "We shall not prosecute you if you possess a small amount of cannabis. We are happy to let you go on buying this from your criminal drug dealer, but we will perhaps try to get hold of you and prosecute you if you try to buy harder drugs or if that same criminal who is supplying you with the cannabis tries to sell you harder drugs. What you have to do is say no to them. We shall not try to stop you if you say yes in the first instance to cannabis but we shall stop you if you say yes to the harder drugs". That is not a clear choice for people to make. The Government are making a mockery of the "Just Say No" campaign. What are people to say no to these days?

Will the Minister explain how it can be right to tell one set of people that it is all right to smoke cannabis but to tell another set of people that they may be put in prison for 14 years if they sell it? Will the Minister explain how, with a policy that consists of deeply confusing mixed messages, he can expect to reduce drug dependency and criminality in this country?

The Statement says that the police,

"will be able to arrest for possession where public order is threatened or where children are at risk".

But how will the police determine the threshold for public order incidents before they decide to take action? Is that a strict legal reference to Section 4 or Section 5 public order offences and, if so, will the higher level of 4 or the lower level of 5 apply? Or do the Government intend the police to take action when other crime such as theft or burglary occurs at the same time? I am confused—as much of the Statement is confused—about when the police will have to take action. The Government say that the police will take action where children are at risk. Do they mean when children are at risk on the streets or in schools or at home? Where will the police be directed to arrest people on those occasions?

I am afraid that just saying in the Statement that the Government's message is clear does not make it so. It is hopelessly muddled. The saddest thing about the policy is that it owes its origins not to the advice of the Government's chief adviser on drugs, nor to a well considered examination of the results of the Brixton experiment, and certainly not to the views of the people whose children's lives are being destroyed by drugs, but to a political stratagem.

The Government adopted this policy because they believed that they could wrongfoot all their opponents, perhaps buying off the libertarians with increased liberalisation and buying off the anti-drugs lobby with a show of toughness. But, as the Government's own adviser said today:

"There is just a sort of repackaging, a respinning of the issue to appear as if something has been done".

The Government's clever stratagem has disintegrated in the past 24 hours and has presented the Government with a massive liability. Far more importantly, it will present many of our most vulnerable communities with the prospect of social disaster.

But it is still not too late. It is not too late for the Government to think again before this disastrous Order in Council is implemented. In the interests of the Government and in the interests of the young people of the whole of our country they should do so.

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement in your Lordships' House. We look forward to the publication of the update of the 1998 drugs strategy.

First, I express my concern about the inconsistencies in the Government's approach to the drugs policy and about the way in which the police seem to be implementing it. We do not have to go too far back to the time when Jack Straw, the then Home Secretary rejected some of the key recommendations of the report of the Police Foundation. In fact, the appointment of the drugs czar at that time gave a pointer of the Government's intention to be tough instead of liberalising some aspects of their drugs policy. The certain demise of this high level appointment is a clear indication of the change at the heart of the Government in handling this subject. However, there is the question of the confusion of the public with regard to the different messages that seem to be filtering through from the Government.

We agree that drugs policy is an important, difficult and sensitive issue. Does the Minister therefore accept that this makes it all the more important that the Government have talks with opposition parties to seek maximum political agreement before the national drugs strategy is updated in the autumn? Does he accept that despite some progress and successes, drugs policies and the present law are still failing badly? The real signs of success are reduced numbers of drug users, drug addicts and drug-related deaths.

Does the Minister agree that dealing with users and addicts should be seen principally as a health issue whereas tackling the dealers and traffickers should be seen principally as a crime issue? Is not that distinction important? If treatment services are to be significantly increased, which we certainly welcome, what then is the Minister's alternative to so-called shooting galleries for moving heroin addicts out of the clutch of criminals and into the hands of health professionals?

Although prison will be entirely appropriate for dealers and traffickers, does the Minister accept that crirninalisation and imprisonment are an inadequate response to the addiction of the addict while at the same time adding thousands more people to our already overcrowded gaols? The Minister mentioned an additional investment that will total £183 million over the next three years. It would he helpful to know precisely what is included within that figure.

On classification, what is the new logic for having different harm categories for amphetamines and cannabis, for example, if the maximum punishment for dealing in them will in future be the same? On cannabis, where the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls among many others shares the view that the present law has fallen into disrepute, we welcome the changed status of cannabis to a class C drug and the announcement that there will in future be a common police response across London to cannabis possession. However, it should not apply simply to London but should be a national policy.

Does the Home Secretary not see the horrible danger of muddled messages if it becomes national policy that cannabis use will not normally be arrestable unless the police consider it a public order matter, that the police will not be expected to look for people using cannabis but that the police will be expected to confiscate it if people use it?

If the Government agree with us that the main focus of the criminal justice and education systems should he to prevent young people being caught up in much more dangerous drugs, such as heroin and crack cocaine, is not the only logical, clear and consistent message that cannabis for personal use will never be the subject of criminal proceedings anywhere in the country but that dealing for profit in cannabis, as is the case with other drugs, will always be subject to prosecution by the law?

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, "Don't make any change" and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, in effect said, "Legalise the possession of cannabis".

We take a middle and sensible course. Our strategy, as set out clearly in the Statement made by my right honourable friend in another place, is to focus on class A drugs; it is not to legalise cannabis. It remains unlawful and a crime to possess it. However, as the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and the Select Committee advised us, one's policy on drugs must be coherent and credible. They advised us that the distinctions that need to be drawn between different sorts of drugs must be more credible. That is why those two bodies recommended that we reduce cannabis from class B to class C. That advice has been taken by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. It involves not legalising cannabis but having a coherent and credible policy that people will understand. I believe that they will understand it very clearly indeed.

As for the increase in penalties for dealing in cannabis, again, people will not have any difficulty understanding the distinction between, on the one hand, possession and, on the other hand, clamping down hard on dealing in illegal drugs such as cannabis. There is no question of a mixed message; the position is perfectly clear. We have dealt with the matter with a degree of clarity that matches people's experience.

The noble Baroness asked whether the effect of the approach involved saying that it was okay to smoke cannabis. No, it does not say that. It says that it remains a criminal offence, albeit class C rather than class B.

Will there be arrest for simple possession? The answer is that there will not be arrest for simple possession but that there will be arrest in aggravated circumstances, such as those involving public order or where there is a risk to children. That is in accordance with the advice given by ACPO. On the circumstances in which there is a risk to public order, I do not believe that ACPO will have any difficulty giving appropriate guidance to its members. Police officers regularly make such judgments on the streets. We have complete confidence that they will be able to continue to do so.

The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, focused on the need to reduce the numbers of drug users, of drug dealers and of people who continue to take drugs having started to do so. We thoroughly agree. That should be the aim of our drugs policy. He said that possession—I believe that he was referring to all drugs—should be regarded as a health issue whereas dealing and trafficking should be regarded as a criminal issue. There is a role in respect of both approaches.

The noble Lord indicated that when people go to prison, they frequently do not get sufficient treatment for their drugs problems. I agree. There has to be a real focus on providing help to people in prison who have drug problems.

The noble Lord asked: what is the Government's response to shooting galleries and are we in favour of some kind of authorised shooting gallery? Our position, which is set out more fully in the response to the Select Committee's report, can be summarised by saying that we support the provision of safe, medically supervised areas with clean needles for the administration of heroin prescribed as part of a comprehensive package of measures for treating heroin addicts, but not for those who have not been prescribed heroin. I hope that that answers the question.

I said in answer to the noble Baroness that we do not believe that our messages are mixed; they are quite straightforward. They seek to deal with the issue that many people face on the streets; those people need a coherent and clear response.

I turn to what the people of Lambeth thought of the experiment. The noble Baroness will know that the Police Foundation, in alliance with MORI, conducted a poll of Lambeth residents towards the end of last year. It showed that 83 per cent of residents supported the Lambeth cannabis scheme, although for 40 per cent of the total that was conditional on the police spending more time reducing serious crime. It also showed that 74 per cent believe that the scheme would result in police time being redeployed into tackling serious crime, that 64 per cent agreed that the scheme would improve community relations and that 71 per cent saw the scheme as a better way of dealing with young people who use cannabis. I wonder whether the noble Baroness has a better angle on what the people of Lambeth think.

My Lords, does the Minister accept that the Statement on cannabis is totally illogical and leads to the worst of all possible worlds? He said, on the one hand, that it is the Government's intention to declassify cannabis as a class C drug. I do not believe that that is right, but that is not the point. The fact is that that is bound to be taken by people as a clear message from the Government that there is really nothing wrong with taking cannabis. The Statement is bound to be looked on as encouraging experimentation and use of the drug among young people.

To attempt at the same time to increase the penalties on dealers is utterly illogical. Where is the supply, which the Statement will encourage, met other than through dealers? As my noble friend Lady Anelay said, are not the Government really throwing the control of drugs and of young people into the hands on those very dealers? Does the noble and learned Lord really believe that those dealers, who will be encouraged to sell cannabis as a result of the declassification to class C, will be satisfied with going no further than that? Or does he accept that the chances are that they will encourage those who are going to them for class C drugs to advance to harder drugs—class A drugs—to the greater profitability of the dealers and the greater devastation of society, as the noble and learned Lord said?

I beg the noble and learned Lord to think again about how to deal with the situation. One cannot make Statements that appear to encourage the use and possession of cannabis and which imply that cannabis in small amounts is no concern without taking some view of the supply. If one goes down that road, surely it would be better to go the whole way, to decriminalise and to have open supply rather than to leave the situation as it currently is; that is, making cannabis a class C dangerous drug with supply only through the dealers.

My Lords, the noble Lord suggested that there is an illogicality between reclassifying—he referred to declassifying—cannabis as class C rather than class B, on the one hand, and, on the other, increasing the maximum penalty for trafficking in class C drugs. The answer to his suggestion is that there is no illogicality there. The basis for reclassification—all the advice—is that one needs to make distinctions between the top of the tree (heroin, crack and cocaine), which involves class A drugs, and class C drugs such as steroids, pain-killers that are not authorised and cannabis. They are all illegal but the distinctions between the three classes should be accurate, understood and coherent to people. That is a clear reason for the reclassification.

Equally, there is nothing illogical or inconsistent between that and saying, "We take an extremely serious view of people dealing and trafficking in drugs". We believe that the right course is to increase the penalties for that in relation to classes B and C. That is what we have done. There is no illogicality.

My Lords, I very much welcome the Statement. I find it clear in its commitment to tackling real problems. As chair of the National Treatment Agency, I shall focus mainly on treatment issues. The treatment agency was set up last year to monitor and improve the provision of treatment and to oversee the core treatment budget. Extra funding for treatment will be welcomed by all those who are active in the field.

As the Minister said, drug misuse affects the health of individuals, the health of families and the health of communities. It also has an impact on crime. But there are many challenges and I believe that those are addressed in the Statement. The challenges involve ensuring that integrated care facilities exist for individuals; that is, care services which stretch from referral right through to assessment and aftercare for all people—prisoners, men, women, young people and black minority ethnic groups, all of whom have very different needs.

I also welcome the emphasis on educating young people to become more aware of the dangers of all drugs and the emphasis on tackling dealers and traffickers. The inter-departmental approach to drugs from the Home Secretary and the Health Secretary is encouraging. It is also encouraging that the Association of Chief Police Officers has placed an emphasis on treatment rather than on punishment as a solution to the problem of drugs.

How does the Minister envisage that the joint action between departments on tackling drugs will work in practice? I should also like an update on the alcohol strategy and the drug target document.

My Lords, I welcome my noble friend's question. It is very important to emphasise and re-emphasise that the drugs strategy to which my right honourable friend's Statement refers is about focusing, in criminal terms in particular, on class A drugs. It is about bearing down on drug traffickers and drug dealers. But it is also about treatment and rehabilitation, and, most importantly, it is about joining up between departments. Therefore, it is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said, simply a criminal, health or education issue; it is a combination of all those.

The strategy will be delivered on the basis of close liaison between all the relevant departments, reinforced from time to time by a ministerial group with representatives from all the departments.

On targets, the Statement makes it clear that we shall publish a detailed update of the drugs strategy in October this year. I shall restrict my answers at present to the drugs strategy and not deal with the alcohol strategy.

My Lords, if I heard aright, I believe that there was one reference in the Statement to cannabis being potentially harmful. Is it not the case that cannabis can do appalling harm? Is there not now abundant evidence that it can, for example, precipitate schizophrenia? Do the Government accept the great body of evidence which indicates that cannabis is an extremely dangerous substance and that it can cause schizophrenia?

If the Government accept that body of evidence—I cannot for the life of me see how they can ignore it—how on earth can they go forward with a misguided policy that is bound to convey to young people that they can smoke cannabis with no risk at all? How can they simultaneously tell people, "For goodness sake, don't take cannabis or you risk ruining your lives"?

My Lords, my right honourable friend's Statement makes it clear that the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs took the view that cannabis is a potentially harmful drug. My right honourable friend in another place made it clear that he, too, considered it to be a harmful drug. There is no question of there being any other view than that.

However, the central point is that, while cannabis should remain illegal, it is not comparable with, say, crack, heroin or ecstasy. It is placed in a different category from those drugs. Again, I make it absolutely clear that the advisory council and my right honourable friend in another place considered it to be a potentially harmful drug and that it should remain illegal.

My Lords, the noble arid learned Lord did not answer my question. Do the Government accept that the use of cannabis can precipitate schizophrenia?

My Lords, I do not want to duck the issue, but I feel slightly reluctant to answer a specific question such as that. Perhaps I may write to the noble Lord about that.

My Lords, will the Minister kindly ensure that the House will be told if any guidance is to be given about the exact effects of cannabis? If noble Lords have listened to teenagers over the past 20 years, they will be aware of the great myth that cannabis does no harm at all. There are other stories which say that it will kill you after taking your first puff. There is a huge amount of disinformation about the substance. As everyone knows, such information is widespread. Will the noble and learned Lord undertake to ensure that the young are made aware of the exact chemical effects of the substance? An important point about the cannabis culture is that it has great layers of rubbish floating around in it concerning what happens when it is taken.

My Lords, that is an important point. It is extremely important that there should be an education campaign setting out the harmful effects of all the relevant drugs—classes A, B and C—in order to get rid of myths and to inform people of the dangers Of taking all drugs, including class C drugs. We hope shortly to begin an education campaign in which the precise information to which the noble Lord refers will be made as public as possible and will be directed in particular towards those in schools.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that government departments have run an education campaign about all drugs, including cannabis, for more than 10 years? I believe that we have just discovered why such education campaigns are not very successful.

I declare an interest. I have been involved in providing day care treatment for drug addicts in London for many years. I also now chair the Mentor Foundation, which is the leading drug prevention organisation in Britain. Therefore, over the past 15 years I have listened to a lot of Statements about drugs in your Lordships' House. I wonder whether the Minister is aware that, apart from a few details, that Statement could have been made at any time over the past 15 years.

The noble and learned Lord told your Lordships that the policy focuses on class A drugs. Does he believe that we have not been focusing on class A drugs for the past 25 years? We have. He talked about extending treatment services. I welcome that and, of course, I welcome the new money. We welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, and her National Treatment Agency. That is a good step forward. But there is a very simple answer to why those treatment services do not work. There are not enough of them; they are colossally under-funded; there are not enough places; and the standards are too low. It is fairly simple.

The noble and learned Lord said that education is very important. It is, but have we not just heard an example of how difficult it is to educate people about drugs? The noble and learned Lord talked about departmental co-ordination. Of course, he is right. I cannot remember—perhaps the noble and learned Lord can help me—how many Ministers from that Front Bench have stood at the Dispatch Box and talked about co-ordination.

Is the noble and learned Lord aware—probably he is not—of how excited the drugs world was when, in 1997, the Prime Minister made it clear that his Government would focus on drugs? He appointed a co-ordinator, who resigned today. Then responsibility was moved and the Secretary of State took charge. Now the issue is back where it was in 1996—with a junior Minister at his department.

The noble and learned Lord talked about prevention. That is very important. I spent two long, frustrating meetings in the noble and learned Lord's department. Is he aware that the prevention strategy that was written up so carefully in 1997 simply does not exist?

I could not—nor would I wish to—address every point in this complex Statement. Some of it is very good and some of it is very sensible. But is the noble and learned Lord aware that, when he tells the House that this is a winning strategy, no one believes him? No one who works in the field considers it to be a winning strategy. He also said that he would like to have a mature and intelligent debate. My last question is whether the House can have a mature, intelligent debate. We have not been able to debate a drugs policy in your Lordships' House since before 1997. Does the noble and learned Lord believe that it would be a good thing if we were able to do so?

My Lords, the last issue is a matter for the Business managers and I would not dream of trespassing into that dangerous territory. The experience of the noble Lord in dealing with drug addicts and people suffering from the effects of drugs is well known in this House. We all respect the work he has done. No one ever suggested that a drugs strategy would be easy to deliver.

I detected in the noble Lord's response that he does not dispute the fact that the things said in the Statement are good things; the question is whether enough is being done. I shall make two points. First, this issue is treated as an extremely high priority. It is at the forefront of the priorities of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, and has been since he became Home Secretary. Secondly, as I indicated in the Statement, we have put significant additional amounts of money into fighting drugs. There will never be enough, but the problem has a high priority and we are doing our level best to deal with it.

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord defended himself on the grounds that the MORI poll carried out at the end of last year gave him evidence to support his case. Is that the latest information he has? Is there not further evidence to suggest that that information is miles out of date?

My Lords, there has been much reporting and anecdotal evidence in relation to what is happening in Lambeth. The poll to which I referred is the most recent polling evidence with which I have been provided. If there is a later poll, I should be interested to hear about it.

My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware—I am sure he is not—that a friend of mine telephoned me the other day because, on visiting a friend, he walked through Brixton and was stopped on many occasions and offered drugs. He was simply horrified. He is a strong young man of six foot two inches, in his early thirties, and he felt vulnerable and concerned.

Does the noble and learned Lord think that Brixton is out of control as regards drugs and drug pushing? If so, many people will shy away from Brixton and it will become a no-go area. If that is the result of the experiment, it is not very good.

Following the point raised by the noble Lord. Lord Waddington, can the Minister tell the House about the effect of cannabis on mentally ill people who take legal drugs? What happens when the two are mixed? Can he also comment on terminally ill people who have campaigned for years to use cannabis legally as part of their treatment? They say that cannabis helps them. Why not include them in an experiment? They are willing people, who say that cannabis helps them. As they are terminally ill, perhaps the damaging effects of the drug are not so important. They want to use it, and we should do all we can to help people in their last stages of life.

My Lords, obviously I was not aware of the conversation referred to by the noble Baroness. However, the point being made is whether drug dealing is increasing dramatically in Lambeth or Brixton. That is the essence of the first part of the question. There is no statistical evidence that there have been more dealers in Lambeth since the cannabis scheme started in July 2001. However, as I said, there has been anecdotal evidence. The evidence given by the noble Baroness is obviously anecdotal to that extent.

Dealer arrest figures, which have just been provided by the Metropolitan Police, show that there have been 224 arrests for supplying class A drugs from July 2001 to May 2002 compared with 204 arrests between July 2000 and June 2001. That is an increase of 10 per cent in 11 months, not 12 months. The Metropolitan Police acknowledge that certain areas have been a centre for crack supply for some years. The policing of crack and heroin has not been relaxed in any way as a result of the cannabis scheme. The police are taking tough action against dealers. As can be seen from the figures I have given, they have had some success. Obviously, one does not know the precise nature of the drugs offered to the friend of the noble Baroness. However, that is the view of the Metropolitan Police about what is happening in Lambeth. That should be set against all the other available evidence.

I turn to the effect of cannabis on the mental health of people taking legal drugs. It would be unwise to try to answer that question from the Dispatch Box. However, perhaps I may deal with that point when I write to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. We have indicated that we should welcome further tests to discover the effect of cannabis as a palliative. That is not in relation to the terminally ill. However, in order to give the correct answer, I would need notice of the question. Perhaps I may write to the noble Baroness.

moved Amendment No. 108:

Page 9, line 25, leave out paragraph (d).

The noble Earl said: During the course of the debate on the Bill I shall talk a good deal about rights. Rights include those of noble Lords to an occasional night's sleep. Therefore, with the leave of the Committee, I propose to group together six of the amendments I have tabled in the hope that one slightly longer speech may take rather less time than six short speeches, and in the hope that it may clarify the issues I want to debate.

The amendments I want to group together are Amendment No. 108, which gives the power to make regulations in which applications for support may not be considered; Amendment No. 110, which would delete a regulation-making power not to consider a person to be destitute; Clause 21 stand part, which involves the requirement to reside in an accommodation centre; Clause 23 stand part, which concerns the right of the Home Secretary to withdraw support; Amendment No. 122, which imposes the power of curfew, and Amendment No. 139A, which allows a restriction of support to those who are in accommodation specified. That does not succeed in covering all the amendments which deal either with the requirement to reside or the right to withhold support. Where possible, I shall try not to spend ally time on the others, unless they raise separate issues.

My principal concern is that which was expressed most of the way through yesterday's proceedings by my noble friend Lord Greaves. He was concerned that the power to require people to reside in accommodation centres, combined with the power to withdraw support may have the effect of making the accommodation centres creep inch by inch into the area of detention centres.

There is a grey area between imprisonment and liberty. House arrest is a classic example It was a clear issue of parliamentary proceedings in 1628. It is difficult to resolve the boundary between imprisonment and unlawful detention. My concern about the amendment is that the two powers taken together shall not be so used as to become unlawful detention. If they do, that would involve not only the misgivings of these Benches and of the Chamber, but it would engage the courts in powers of arbitrary imprisonment, the Human Rights Act and Strasbourg. That might lead the Government into rather deeper waters than those in which they wish to walk.

The Oakington judgment caused a good deal of thought in the Home Office. It created an unresolved dialogue. Clause 22, which we on these Benches welcome, provides a right to give support outside accommodation centres. That is good. But Clause 23 provides the right to withdraw such support. Clearly, a dialogue is still in progress about which of those powers the Government intend to implement. In fact, they have kept their options open.

I shall not be greedy. I shall not try to insist that the Minister accepts all these amendments. But he has a choice to make if he wants to put himself legally in the clear. He must retreat either on the power to make residing in the accommodation centre compulsory or on the power to withhold support. It will be his decision as to which of those he does.

I am not at all sure what he will do about this matter, but he is running himself into some fairly deep legal water. If he goes into a question which might get him into detention, he will have to engage with Article 5.1(f) of the European Convention on Human Rights. I think that he will probably be in the clear where he is dealing with people whose removal has already been decided on. Article 5.1(f) authorises,

"the lawful arrest or detention … of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition".

I do not make an issue of that.

However, we have talked for most of today about the need to detain people who are making an application and still hoping for success. I doubt whether that is covered in the first words of Article 5.1(f), which authorise,

"the … detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country".

Under Article 31 of the refugee convention, I hardly think that the people in the accommodation centre, making lawful applications for asylum, should be construed as having made unlawful entry into the country and be detained for that purpose. Therefore, I do not think that the Government can rely on that. If they cannot, they must engage with Article 5.2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It states:

"Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him".

That applies to detention and will be dealt with in later stages of the Bill. But I do not think that the Government want that to apply to ordinary accommodation centres. They will have to modify their position somewhat if they are to avoid that.

The Government will also, on the withdrawal of support, have to take account of the argument of the Joint Committee on Human Rights—which I read with a great deal of interest—that the withdrawal of support constitutes inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3 of the convention. I do not know whether there is any case law on that subject. But it is a high-powered committee which would not make such suggestions lightly.

If I were the Government, I would be reluctant to put that particular point to the issue in the courts. For one thing, it would not look particularly good while the debate was in progress. Nor would I be entirely confident of success. I would not be entirely certain of failure. But it is a matter on which one does not particularly want to become a lawyer's "interesting case".

I am also interested in Article 24 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, which provides that refugees shall be accorded the same treatment as is accorded to nationals in matters of social security.

I know that the Government will say that that does not apply. They will rely on the judgment in 1996 of Lord Justice Simon Brown in ex parte B. He accepted the Treasury's contention that the word "refugee" applies only to those whose claims to asylum have already been accepted.

I believe that it could be argued that, in a judgment which was otherwise extremely critical of the Government, that remark by Lord Justice Simon Brown was obiter. It was a matter which had not been argued before him. It was not material to the resolution of the case and was not supported by any body of argument. It also contradicts the wording of the UNHCR handbook.

In matters of interpreting the UN Convention on refugees, the proper guide to the intention of the legislature is the UNHCR handbook. It is its convention. It also seems to be contrary to the plain words of Article 1, which state that a refugee is any person who is outside the territory of his country with a well-founded fear of persecution and therefore unable or unwilling to avail himself of its protection. There is nothing there whatever about the need to have had one's application accepted.

There is also the authority of the judgment in 1993 of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan in the Khaboka case. He accepted the meaning of the UN convention put forward by UNHCR and regarded the point as "absolutely clear". The Government would be unwise to take it as impossible that any future judge will follow the line taken by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan. It is perfectly possible that they might.

In this context, the power of curfew makes it look even more like a detention, and the power, which I have taken up in Amendment No. 139A, to refuse support to those who do not reside in the accommodation centre looks suspiciously like a penalty. This at least is near cousin to detention. I think that the Government—unless they have more confidence in the courts than the Home Secretary usually appears to show—would be unwise to let these matters be resolved in the courts. I beg to move.

Amendment No. 122, which deals with the power of curfew, is grouped with this set of amendments. When the Minister replies, perhaps he can say a bit more about how the Government intend to apply the power for the Secretary of State to make regulations. Under those regulations he can impose conditions requiring.

"a person not to be absent from the [accommodation] centre during specified hours without the permission of the Secretary of State or the manager".

That sounds as though the Government intend to lock these centres up at a fixed hour in the evening. No one will thereafter be allowed to enter or depart. It is rather like the old days in an Oxford college when the gates were locked—if I remember rightly—at 10 o'clock. My noble friend Lord Russell says that he still bears the scars.

I used to have a room on staircase 14 in Balliol with a drainpipe running up to the window. My sleep was disturbed almost every night with people coming in after the fixed hour.

I do not suppose that there will be drainpipes outside the accommodation centres. But if the noble Lord proposes to impose that kind of restriction on people, then we should know about it at this stage and not wait until the regulations are published.

In any normal society in this country people go about their business in the evening. They go out to the cinema, to the pub and to visit friends. Obliging people in accommodation centres to return at a fixed hour every evening would place an unreasonable restriction on their freedom to do what every other person in this country can easily do without any restriction.

Furthermore, under the provision in the following subsection, if a person breaches that condition, he can immediately be deprived of his right to remain in the accommodation centre. As I understand it, he would be cast into outer darkness without any means of support. What do the Government think will happen in these cases? Let us suppose that the person who inadvertently comes in late one evening has a family. The offence is absolute; there is no qualification. The Bill does not say that he will be subject to the penalty if he has no reasonable grounds for failing to returning by the specified hour. That is why we need the Minister to spell this out in far more detail, so that we can judge whether to give these powers, knowing how they will be exercised.

The mesmerising oratory of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has almost expunged from my mind what I had intended to say. He is right, of course, to say that if the restrictions on the activities of someone in an accommodation centre are so severe that they amount in effect to detention, then those restrictions must meet all the legal criteria laid clown, both by the convention and by our own courts, in permitting it.

In addition, I suggest that the Minister has to take into account bail criteria. It is not enough to say: "So long as I meet the detention criteria, I can introduce what restrictions I like". I suggest that the Minister must also apply the circumstances in which someone detained in an accommodation centre ought to have been granted hail and, therefore, freedom of movement. So there are two gateways through which these restrictions must pass in order to be valid in law.

I have a question of my own for the Minister. In circumstances where an asylum seeker breaches restrictions made on him in an accommodation centre before the final decision about his status is determined, would his so-called bad behaviour have any effect on the way in which the ultimate decision was reached?

I acknowledge with some appreciation the grouping that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has undertaken. It allows for a potentially more efficient consideration of these issues. We need that, given the distance that we have to go in the proper scrutiny of the Bill.

My response at this stage will be the Government's view of these matters, but I do not want to be rapid or rash in my response to the points raised on these clauses by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. On this occasion, it may be useful if I take some time to reflect on them, and either respond or not on or before Report if it would seem wise to do so. I hope that both noble Lords will take this as an interim response pending further reflection.

I shall deal first with some of the specific points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, before painting the overall picture of the Government's view on these issues. On the points about Article 5 and the ECHR and preventing a person effecting an unauthorised entry, the meaning of this is subject to the decision of the House of Lords in the Oakington case, which we are still awaiting, as the noble Earl knows. In any event, there is no intention to detain at an accommodation centre. It is not our intention that the conditions set out in Clause 27 will amount to detention or to drift towards that, which was clearly the central thrust of the question.

With regard to withdrawal of support breaches under Article 3, the answer is: we believe not. Simple destitution alone would not in our view meet the minimum level of severity required under Article 3. The withdrawal of support could potentially breach Article 3, but whether it is breached will be a matter of fact in each case. We shall take decisions on withdrawing support on a case by case basis, with a clear awareness of the potential challenge and risk that might be implied by engaging Article 3. We consider that Article 24 of the UN convention on refugees applies only to recognised refugees.

The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, raised the question of whether bail rights should be considered. We suggest that this is not necessary because this is not detention. Essentially, the noble Lord's challenge was that if it moved towards detention, then bail rights might do so. We shall seek to ensure that it is riot detention.

My point, which I ought to have made more clearly than I did, was that, in looking at the limits to restrictions that can be placed on the freedom of movement of someone in an accommodation centre, the test should be, first, the detention test, providing a kind of floor below which the Secretary of State could not fall. Above that, there should also be the bail test; namely, even if an individual was in detention, given all the circumstances, would a court have granted that person bail? This provides a second gateway through which the Secretary of State has to pass before he can impose a restriction on an individual at art accommodation centre. That was the point that I wanted to make.

As usual, the noble Lord was not unclear. He was explicitly clear on his first point. What was not set out was my response. I am still going to leave that in store. I shall reflect on it and come back to him, if I might.

The noble Lord raised a point about breach of conditions on bad behaviour and whether that would engage the credibility of an asylum case. This is clearly extremely sensitive territory. It is obvious that it does not automatically do so. Perhaps I may give an example that was used in another place. If someone in an accommodation centre was frequently absent without the approval of the centre and without acceptable reasonable grounds, and if he was then found to be working illegally in a job which had been arranged before his arrival in the United Kingdom, such circumstances might be relevant to the credibility of the claim. Clearly, I am choosing my words carefully, but I seek to illustrate a circumstance in which it is possible that a breach of the understanding and expectations in an accommodation centre might engage the credibility of the asylum claim. I preface that with a clear statement that this is not by any means an automatic situation—not for one second—and one has to be extremely careful in these matters that there is a clear relationship between the two or more sets of events.

The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked whether coming in late would be a breach of a person's residence conditions. The aim, under the conditions in Clause 27, is that the Secretary of State should act reasonably and that reasonable conditions of residence should be set to try to ensure that a centre is a place where people can live as a community with some reasonable consideration for each other. At the same time, we want to ensure that the person has fulfilled his obligations to be present in an accommodation centre as part of his side of what is effectively an understanding of his receiving the support applied for on the grounds that he has stated that he is destitute and needs help from the state.

The Secretary of State is not obliged to withdraw support for breaches of conditions. Nor would it be right automatically to do so. Each decision to withdraw support would have to be taken individually. It would have to be proportionate and reasonable. In most circumstances, one would expect that it would be taken only after a process of proper warnings and communication. We are talking about human beings. One would seek to draw to the person's attention the fact that there was a breach, to hear any views about the breach, to affirm that the breach was serious if, in the light of that, it was felt to be so, and to point out potential consequences.

Would the decisions to withdraw support be judicially reviewable?

They would certainly be appealable. Therefore, I expect that they would also be judicially reviewable if there were felt to be a failure of process in the appeal. We shall come to that when I speak more fully in a moment.

I am sorry to pile one interruption upon another, but the Minister has not answered my question. At what time will those restrictions be imposed, bearing in mind that the four centres the Government intend to build are not immediately adjacent to a large town? If someone wants to go out for a drink in the evening or wishes to attend a cinema, he must be allowed reasonable time to do so and to return to the centre. If a restriction were imposed that everyone had to be in by midnight, they could not lead a normal social life and comply with that condition.

The detail of what one might call house rules on considerate behaviour towards other residents will need to be considered by the Government in regulations and by the centre management with regard to how those are developed. For example, speaking loosely, one could envisage that if there were young children it might be unreasonable to come in at two or three o'clock in the morning and start making a lot of noise, because people have a right to their sleep. On the other hand, people are not being detained in accommodation centres. They are also expected to be able to lead a normal life.

The best analogy I can give relates to the block of flats in which I live. I have a certain amount of freedom in what I can do, but I do not have freedom to play my music system after eleven o'clock at night. One seeks to have house rules that reflect other people's needs. In some senses, those are slightly different from the issue of fulfilling residence obligations in the accommodation centre. If a person is in an accommodation centre, the Government—the state—say, "We shall provide you with accommodation and support in what we hope will be a very decent place, but you are expected to give evidence that you are living there rather than living somewhere else without approval". In that area, there have to be some expectations and some warnings were a person repeatedly to breach the expectations of occupation in the centre.

Without getting myself into trouble, let me give an example. If someone wanted to go away for a night or two because there was a family funeral at the other end of the country, one could not imagine that that would not be allowed. But if someone repeatedly wanted to be away for two or three nights a week one would expect the centre manager to inquire why that person was going away for two or three nights, particularly if that were without permission, when they were expected to live in the accommodation centre to receive the support from the state for which they asked.

I leave it at that point. There are two issues: fulfilling the residence requirements and house behaviour. No doubt we can debate those issues further if appropriate.

I now place on the record the Government's general position and explain why we do not think that opposition Amendments Nos. 108, 110, 122 and 139A are appropriate. Equally, we think it important that Clauses 21 and 23 stand part of the Bill.

On Amendment No. 108, Clause 15 sets out a category of persons who can be supported within an accommodation centre: that is, asylum seekers and their dependants who are destitute, or likely to become destitute within a period to be prescribed. It also contains a power to make regulations to set out the particular procedure to be followed in providing such accommodation and gives examples of particular provisions which can be included in such regulations. Amendment No. 108 would prevent the Secretary of State being able to specify in regulations the circumstances in which an application may not be considered.

We need this ability to ensure the process works as smoothly and efficiently as possible. A particular example of the type of circumstance which is likely to be included is that an application may not be considered where the appropriate application form has not been completed. If we are to process applications efficiently it is necessary to make these requirements and ensure that those who are seeking support comply with our procedures for the benefit of all concerned. We believe that Amendment No. 108 would lead to potential delays and confusion in the application process.

On Amendment No. 110, Clause 17 contains a definition of destitution. Subsection (6) allows the Secretary of State to make regulations. Paragraph (a) makes clear that the regulations may include provision for a person not to be treated as destitute in specified circumstances. The amendment would prevent the Secretary of State specifying circumstances in regulations where an application for support in an accommodation centre may not be considered; that is, when a person is not to be treated as destitute.

We believe that there is nothing sinister in Clause 17(6)(a). The power reflects an existing provision in Schedule 8 to the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The asylum support regulations made under that Act specify the circumstances which are likely to be equally applicable for accommodation centres. They include, for example, a person who is eligible for interim support from a local authority under the Asylum Support (Interim Provisions) Regulations 1999 and a person who is eligible for social security benefits. Clearly, people eligible for support under other provisions should not be able to benefit from additional support. The asylum support regulations currently also excluded persons who have not made a claim for asylum. Again, we anticipate following a similar approach for accommodation centres. Naturally, we do not want to support non-asylum seekers under asylum support provisions. It is sensible to spell out these categories in secondary legislation so that the position is clear. Amendment No. 110 would prevent that.

Clause 21 is important because it sets out the relationship between provisions in Part 2 of the Bill and paragraph 21 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act, paragraph 2(5) of Schedule 3 to the 1971 Act and Section 4 of the 1999 Act.

A person subject to entry control may be examined by immigration officers to determine whether he is admitted to the UK and, if so, on what terms. Persons in that position are liable to detention but may be temporarily admitted as an alternative to being detained pending examination of their claim. Where they are granted temporary admission, they may be subject to residence and reporting requirements; similarly for people released from detention pending deportation.

Clause 21 makes clear that a residence requirement under paragraph 2(5) of Schedule 3 to the 1971 Act may include a requirement to reside at an accommodation centre in the same way as a person may currently be required to reside at a private address or NASS accommodation. Clause 21 also makes clear that where a person is required to leave the accommodation centre following, for example, a breach of conditions, he is treated as having broken the residence restriction imposed under the Immigration Act 1971. This means that he may be liable for detention under current detention policy in the same way as a person breaching a residence restriction imposed at the present time under the Immigration Act 1971. This is an important part of our approach to honouring our obligations and expecting compliance with our procedures as a result.

Clause 23 deals with the withdrawal of accommodation centre support about which we have spoken. We need some protection against abuse of our asylum support system. The clause sets out that support may be stopped where the Secretary of State suspects that a person or a dependant has committed an offence set out in Clause 30—for example, a person making false representations with a view to obtaining support for himself or any other person or a person making dishonest representations with a view to obtaining any benefit or other payment or advantage for himself or any other person. Support may also be stopped if a person or a dependant of his has failed to comply with any directions as to the time or manner of travel to an accommodation centre.

If support has been stopped under one of those provisions, it is right that we should be able to take account of that if a further application for support is made. We want to make sure that people are aware of the consequences of their actions. If they do not comply, they should not automatically expect to benefit in the same way as those who are fully compliant.

Clause 23(3) also allows the Secretary of State to take into account the fact that support has been withdrawn from a person following a breach of condition at an accommodation centre. Conditions of residence will be set out in regulations made under Clause 27 and will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I hope that that will he helpful.

The provisions are entirely consistent with those in the Asylum Support Regulations 2000. Regulation 20 deals with the suspension or discontinuation of support. Stopping support is a serious matter. We would assess cases on their merits and consider the precise circumstances of each case before taking that option. However, if our systems are to command the confidence of all those here and of the asylum seekers themselves, we must make clear what we expect of those who seek sanctuary and what may happen if our hospitality is abused. Asylum seekers whose support is withdrawn under the provisions of Clause 23 have the safeguard of a right of appeal to the asylum support adjudicator, as I said.

Amendment No. 122 would fundamentally undermine our policy for accommodation centres. We have made it clear that we intend residents to be subject to reporting and residence requirements. That is a crucial part of providing better contact management. If we cannot require accommodation centre residents to be present in the centre at specified times—such as overnight—how can we be sure of their whereabouts? It is a sad fact that some asylum seekers abuse our systems. I shall not go on about that. Our study of what happens in Denmark produced evidence that, in some circumstances, people will live elsewhere, if there is no residence requirement.

It may help if I make clear that, in operating residence conditions under Clause 27, the Secretary of State is obliged to be reasonable. That is an explicit and enforceable principle of administrative law. We will not make asylum seekers subject to unreasonable residence conditions. We want the centres to be self-contained communities in which people can live as normally as possible. As I said, we expect that someone who wanted to visit a relative for a particular reason would be permitted to do so under Clause 27(3).

In short, if people behave reasonably—we have made clear our expectations—and do not abuse our hospitality, they should be able to abide by the residence conditions with minimal fuss and with minimal impact on their daily life. There would also be an understanding that exceptional circumstances would require reasonable consideration.

The Government cannot accept Amendment No. 139A. Taking a power to end the provision of subsistence-only support is wholly consistent with our policy of developing a more managed asylum system and developing ways of keeping better contact with asylum seekers during the asylum process. Given what we have discussed, it is clear that the replacement of the present system of dispersed accommodation with accommodation centres is some time in the future. Indeed, there is no certainty that that will happen; it is equally plausible that we might have a mixed system including some centres and some dispersal. However, if it does happen, we intend to offer support only in those accommodation centres.

Under current arrangements, asylum seekers can stay with friends or relatives and claim support to cover essential living needs. We have no control over where they live, which makes it difficult to maintain contact. As the Committee knows, large numbers of those who take up cash-only support remain in London and the South East. As of December 2001, over 17,000 of the 25,000-plus asylum seekers taking subsistence-only support lived in London. That presents problems and does nothing to help alleviate the pressure on services in the areas that the introduction of the dispersal scheme was designed to help. In deciding whether and when to exercise the power, the Government will take all relevant factors into consideration, including our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.

It is anticipated that any increase in accommodation costs will be offset by savings delivered elsewhere in the asylum system as a result of improved contact. I recognise that we are talking about events that are conjectural and some way into the future. However, the power must be there, should we need to cross that bridge.

I hope that the assurances that I have offered—for now, at least—will be sufficient to allow the noble Earl to withdraw the amendment.

I am grateful to the Minister for the care, courtesy and consideration with which he has handled the amendments. In offering to reflect on them over the summer, he has offered me the central assurance for which I asked.

I am painfully aware that I am not a lawyer. What I said should be regarded as being, largely, in the interrogative mode. If I can be certain that the Government will consult their legal advisers and consider with them whether there is any weight in the questions that I have raised, I will have achieved my main purpose. For that, I thank the Minister warmly.

Some questions remain. I was relieved by what the Minister said about the reasonableness required by Clause 27. I hope that that will meet some of the points raised by my noble friend Lord Avebury. When he spoke on Clause 21, he made clear the element of compulsion in that clause. I happen to know a Kosovar refugee who has settled in London. She would, I think, have come to London in any case because she wanted to be near her sister who lives here. That is not unreasonable. Making it compulsory not to do it would raise questions.

The Minister skilfully and carefully considered the accommodation centres and the withdrawal of support as two separate lines of argument. However, the central point of what I said was that, in such cases, they may need to be taken jointly, not severally. It is the combination of the compulsion to reside with the penalty—we must call it that—of withdrawal of support from someone who breaches it that raises questions in my mind about whether that might amount to a form of detention.

Having said that I would reflect on the points raised, I shall add that point to the pile that the noble Earl has already offered me.

That is exactly the note on which I was about to conclude my remarks. I thank the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 110A:

Page 11, line 9, at end insert—

"() is over 18 years of age"

The noble Lord said: I want to raise another issue relating to children in the accommodation centres. Earlier, we debated Amendment No. 107, which dealt with the issue of providing education for children in accommodation centres. My amendment deals with the issue of whether children should he placed in accommodation centres with their families. It would also he useful to consider whether children should be placed in the proposed accommodation centres at all. That issue has not been explored in the Bill's passage to date. but it should be an important consideration for us.

Children's charities and refugee organisations are concerned that accommodation centres will not afford children the care and protection they need and will not uphold their rights under human rights law. My amendment would ensure that children and their families were not housed in accommodation centres. It would mean that dependants of asylum seekers, as defined in Clause 18, would not include children. There are concerns that because of the repeated reforms of the support arrangements for asylum seekers, children are losing out. We cannot continue to experiment with children's lives by testing policies on them to see whether they are feasible and withdrawing them after some children have been irreparably damaged. If there are genuine fears that living in accommodation centres could do lasting harm to a child's development, the policy should not proceed.

An understanding of the degree of trauma, upheaval and loss that children seeking asylum have suffered should always be uppermost in our minds as we determine policies that impact on them. Their emotional and mental health are likely to be extremely fragile and they will often be disorientated, confused and frightened. They will need specialist, and sensitive care and support.

It is highly unlikely that accommodation centres of the kind proposed will provide the right kind of care and support in the best environment for the child. Moreover, placing children in institutions that are not focused on meeting their individual needs is likely to delay substantially the healing process, if not exacerbate their problems, by adversely affecting their development and well-being.

As we know, the centres will be large, sited in remote places and insular in so far as they will not encourage residents to engage with the local community by providing all services on site. Is that the environment that any of us would wish for our own children? More to the point, should we force such an environment on extremely vulnerable children, many of whom will have acute needs?

The Government have sought to justify their proposals by saying that most asylum seekers who are recognised as refugees will remain in the accommodation centres for only two months, but in Standing Committee in response to calls to have a six-month limit on a stay in an accommodation centre, Angela Eagle said that six months was a "tough call" in terms of processing claims.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child should provide our guiding principles in all decisions relating to children. The convention provides a critical standard against which our treatment of children seeking asylum can be assessed. In particular, the best interests principle, which is set out in Article 3 of the convention, should be our overriding consideration as we develop policy. Children's charities point out that the Government have failed to demonstrate that placing children and young people in accommodation centres is in the best interests of those children.

The placement of children and their families in accommodation centres also gives rise to serious concerns under other articles of the convention. Under Article 6, there is a duty on the state to ensure to the maximum extent possible the development of the child. Article 15 refers to freedom of association, but living in isolated areas will make it difficult for families to make cultural links and participate in normal community life. The communal experience of accommodation centres may militate against the rights of children to privacy and a family life, to which Articles 16 and 18 refer. Families will be denied a say in the location and type of accommodation that would best meet their needs and the best interests of their children under Articles 5 and 18. The removal of opportunities for children to participate in social, leisure, recreational and cultural activities available to other children in the UK is covered by Article 31. Children will be denied a voice in major decisions that affect them, to which Article 12 refers.

All those concerns were considered by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which concluded that the most serious concerns were in respect of Articles 3, 12, 15 and 31. In particular, the Committee emphasised that the duty on the Government under Article 3 is to make the best interests of the child the primary consideration in all actions concerning children. In respect of Article 15, which sets out children's rights in relation to freedom of association, the Committee stated:

" … in our view, it would be a matter of real concern if life in an accommodation centre for destitute asylum seekers and their dependants were to be regarded as an example of that 'normal community life' with which children are entitled to make cultural links and in which they are entitled to participate. We accept that the Department intends to make efforts to make life in the centres as pleasant as possible, but such a life would be inherently abnormal by most people's standards. It would also be likely to be somewhat cut off from local communities. The proposal to educate most children inside the accommodation centres rather than in local schools … would deprive the children of an important opportunity to forge links with the local community, and could delay the process of integrating into the community those who are successful in establishing a right to remain. Making links is likely to be particularly difficult if accommodation centres are located in isolated areas, as seems to be quite possible in many cases. We are concerned that this will make it difficult to meet the requirements of children's rights under CRC Article 15".

If it is in the best interests of children to be housed in accommodation centres, we would expect children seeking asylum to welcome the Government's proposals. However, young people consulted by Save the Children felt that accommodation centres were not a good idea for children and they were particularly concerned about being segregated from local communities. One of the children said:

"Young people need to get out and experience things".

Another said:

"We will not be able to make friends, especially with local people"

A third person said:

"Some people [in accommodation centres] will make trouble and noise and there will be no space to be individual".

What is the alternative to accommodation centres? We should not forget that, while the pilots are taking place, the vast majority of asylum seekers will still be dispersed in the normal way. More importantly, many organisations working with asylum seekers are of the view that dispersal is starting to work much better in some areas. Where the right infrastructure is in place and community partnerships of service providers have been built, there is growing evidence that dispersal placements can be very successful.

The Government's operational review of the dispersal scheme last year, made a series of practical recommendations on how the dispersal system could be further improved. It addressed issues such as clustering, and improving communication between NASS and other local agencies better to prepare communities in dispersal areas and to ensure that there is a better match between children and families and the services that they need. But the Government have given no time for those recommendations to be implemented before coming up with yet another proposal on how to accommodate asylum seekers. That is difficult to understand, particularly given that the emerging evidence on dispersal was increasingly positive.

The priority should be to improve existing services to enable children to access mainstream services and to piece their lives back together in as normal an environment as possible, rather than create new systems that divide, disrupt and exclude. The onus is on the Government to evaluate whether or not, according to objective criteria, it is in children's best interests to be placed in an accommodation centre rather than in their own home with their family in the community.

The Government have failed to demonstrate, or even to argue that it is better for a child seeking asylum to be placed in an accommodation centre than in his own home. It is difficult, therefore, to accept the Government's claim that they treat such children as children first and foremost. Indeed, it seems that the rights and needs of those vulnerable children are being subordinated to the demands of an inflexible, politically driven asylum policy. I beg to move.

The Select Committee on Delegated Powers in its 24th report referred to this clause and Clauses 59 and 60. The report stated that the definition of dependant would be prescribed in regulations. However, a Home Office memorandum to the Committee before it considered the Bill suggested that the Government were thinking that they might define what a dependant was and could consequently remove the delegated power. Does the Minister know whether it was the Government's intention to do that? I do not think that an amendment has been tabled to that effect. To leave the definition to delegated legislation is slightly worrying and perhaps some of those worries were encapsulated in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia.

Perhaps the Minister could at the same time tell us where to find the definition of "a prescribed class", mentioned in Clause 18. I cannot find it anywhere.

I was referring to that issue.

With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, who has taken a great deal of trouble to put his case, I do not see how the Government can accept the amendment. It seems to conflict with Clause 16(1)(a), which states:

"For the purposes of this Part a person is an 'asylum-seeker' if—

(a) he is at least 18 years old".

Here we are dealing with dependants. To provide that no one under the age of 18 can be a dependant could create immense hardship and trouble. I believe that a large proportion of the dependants will be teenagers between the ages of 13 and 17 inclusive. If they are not treated as dependants, with all the rights that the Bill gives to dependants, they could be deprived of accommodation, education and even medical treatment. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, would not want to see such a situation and therefore I hope and believe that the Government will reject the amendment.

The noble Lord is right. The amendment would prevent our supporting dependent children under the age of 18 in accommodation centres. In effect, it is a repeat of the previous debate. Having spoken rapidly and at, I thought, excessive length, I shall only weary the Committee if I repeat the points I made. In short, they are faster decision-making, the potential for high-quality education and support, and a proper evaluation which will be open for all to see.

I shall not add further to that reply except to refer to why we believe that placing families with children in accommodation centres is in the best interests of the child. If the family is successful in its application, it is likely to happen faster and the family will then be able, at an earlier stage, to integrate into British society. If the family is not successful and is due to be removed, it will not be in the interests of the child for him to be integrated, only then to be removed. There is no reason to suppose that a place in an accommodation centre would breach the rights of the child. On the contrary, it would fully meet his needs at that stage.

As regards the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, the definition of "dependants" is still under consideration. We intend to have a wider pragmatic definition of "dependant" and may well steer a leaner path to ensure flexibility to react to experience and changing circumstances.

The noble Lord, Lord Elton, asked about the definition of "a prescribed class". Clause 33(1) provides that "prescribed" means prescribed by the Secretary of State by order or regulations. That is one of those delicious circular definitions for these purposes.

Having made those points, I invite the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, to withdraw his amendment.

On the point of definition of "dependant", could a person be taken to be a dependant because he was too old to be self-sufficient? As the Minister was speaking, I suddenly had a picture if Eneas emerging from the flames of Troy bearing his father on his shoulders.

Certainly in the common-sense understanding of the word, but I would need to reflect on whether that is the meaning we will want to give it in the regulations. The expectation was that we would be looking at children as dependants rather than older people. But we will reflect on the point.

Perhaps the noble Lord will confirm that he referred to Clause 32(1). If so, the definition still eludes me.

If I said Clause 32(1) I was wrong. I should have said Clause 33(1), which is a repetition of the problem we had earlier.

I shall be brief. I wholly agree with the Minister that a debate on this issue would simply be a re-run of the debate on Amendment No. 107A. On the other hand, the debate in the Commons on the same amendment lasted 70 minutes. Until the Minister spoke, four Labour MPs representing London constituencies took part. I took the trouble to read the whole of that 70-minute debate comprising the views of Labour MPs. It reinforces powerfully the view of my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew, in the debate on Amendment No. 107A, that flexibility is immensely desirable. If trialing can include some of the points made in the debate in the Commons, so much the better.

We are in the sphere of speculation and conjecture, and I do not want to weary the Committee by prolonging the debate. However, some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, about what life might be like in an accommodation centre need to be taken seriously. There is the strange paradox that it would deny families the kind of privacy in which they are entitled to expect to live. Accommodation centres will be unnatural communities, probably intimidatory from time to time. At the same time, Article 15 on the rights of the child and freedom of association is breached. Confining families in accommodation centres, even with the theoretical possibility of going out and about, will not enable the children to experience any kind of normal life.

It may be that the alternative is even worse. I know of many scandalous cases of immoral and irresponsible private landlords making life extremely unpleasant for asylum-seeking families. If that were the case and nothing could be done about it, life in accommodation centres would be less bad. It would certainly not be good. The best solution would be the better running of the dispersal system with better support for those dispersed into the community.

Will the Minister reassure the Committee that real efforts are being made to support families who are dispersed so that they are not intimidated and that in the creation of communities in accommodation centres there will be both concentration on privacy and the possibility of the children being able to engage with community life more widely?

What the right reverend Prelate says about children having association while in accommodation centres is right. We will seek to foster that in their development. Seeking to make dispersal work better will be an objective of government policy, come what may, because on any conjecture of how quickly we move forward on accommodation centres, dispersal will be with us for some years. Therefore, the right reverend Prelate is right to mark it and we are signalling that we must seek to improve.

I support the amendment, which is different from Amendment No. 107A. That amendment dealt solely with the education of children in accommodation centres. This amendment proposes that children should never be placed in accommodation centres.

I want to raise only one point in addition to those mentioned by my noble friend Lord Bhatia. There is much concern among children's charities about the child protection framework in accommodation centres. The information that has emerged through responses to questions in the other place raises serious concerns about the inferior level of protection that will be afforded children in accommodation centres and, indeed, whether the Government have properly thought through this aspect of their policy.

It is disturbing that in an answer to a question raised in the other place on 10th June, the Government stated that accommodation centres will not have a statutory duty to have a policy on child protection but that such matters will be left to individual contractual arrangements. The Government have also stated that accommodation centres will not be required to register under the Care Standards Act 2000, even though they meet the criteria for a requirement to register as set out in that Act. I would be grateful if the Minister could advise us on whether all the relevant provisions of the Children Act 1989 will apply to children in accommodation centres.

Children seeking asylum are particularly vulnerable. It is unjustifiable to place them in an institutional setting that has inferior child protection and welfare frameworks compared with those that must be in place by law for other children.

For the record, although the Committee may weary of hearing this. we do not accept the suggestion that life for families in accommodation centres will be poor. The centres will not be camps; they will be more akin to self-contained villages with all the facilities needed to enable people and their children to lead decent lives without fear.

The categorical answer to the noble Lord's specific question whether the provisions of the Children Act 1989 will apply to children in accommodation centres is yes. Section 47 of the Act places a duty on local authorities to respond if they have reasonable cause to suspect that a child living in their area is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm.

I am grateful to the Minister for his views on the amendment. All Members of both Houses of Parliament must think first about the needs of children and secondly about the asylum process. Children are vulnerable. In many cases they will be isolated. Often they will be bewildered and confused. The best solution would be not to place such children in accommodation centres. Perhaps an element of flexibility should be introduced whereby families with young children seeking asylum should be allowed to live in the community from the start. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 18 agreed to.

Clause 19 [Sections 15 to 18: supplementary]:

I cannot call Amendment No. 111 because it has already been debated.

I do not think that it has been debated. Does the Minister have an opinion on that?

Perhaps I may offer some clarification. We have a white sheet and a green sheet for the amendments. I think there is an error on the white sheet. That error has been corrected on the green sheet.

While I have no great desire to ask for an extra debate, in all honesty and fairness I should point that out.

I must apologise to the Committee. I am not in possession of the green sheet; I have the white sheet, which contains the error. Perhaps we may revert to Amendment No. 111.

moved Amendment No. 111:

Page 11, line 12, after "Secretary of State" insert ", after appropriate medical advice,"

The noble Earl said: I am most grateful to the Minister and to the Deputy Chairman of Committees. I shall not take long over the amendment, which concerns proof of age. In societies that have not been through the transition from memory to written record, sometimes proof of age can be difficult.

Some hilarious proceedings have been recorded in medieval and Tudor English jurisprudence in which every villager recollected that the birth of a child happened in the year when he broke his leg or when the church steeple was struck by lightning. These dates demonstrate many of the difficulties presented by the dates at the beginning of St. Luke's Gospel.

Occasionally decisions by immigration officers are based purely on appearance at first sight, without making allowance for the very different rates and ways in which groups of people develop. The Bill provides that,

"The Secretary of State may inquire into and decide a person's age".

The amendment would insert the words, "after appropriate medical advice". That would not remove the possibility of error, but it would greatly lessen it. I beg to move.

As ever I am grateful to the noble Earl for his discourse into history. Dates of birth are important in modern society. I recall being very excited when my son was born, but I am still unclear as to whether he was born five minutes before or five minutes after midnight. We settled on five minutes after the hour.

The Government's position on this matter is simple and straightforward. It is necessary to be accurate and certain about a person's age. For that reason, the Secretary of State will need to establish age, because with it comes eligibility for different kinds of support. The principal issue here is that of single adults claiming to be unaccompanied minors. That is due to the perceived benefit of remaining within the area of the local authority providing support, which is often London or the South East.

We believe that the amendment is unnecessary as all those claiming to be unaccompanied minors are referred to social services for an assessment before the Secretary of State makes a decision on their age. That decision will determine whether the applicant will be supported by the local authority or whether they would be eligible to be supported by the Secretary of State in an accommodation centre. Those aged 18 will fall to be supported by the Secretary of State. For that reason, the Secretary of State needs to have the power to determine age in order to minimise disputes.

An equivalent provision enabling the Secretary of State to inquire into and decide a person's age for the purpose of provision of support through NASS is contained in Section 94(7) of the 1999 Act. That does not refer to medical advice.

We are grateful to the noble Earl for the amendment, but we think that it is unnecessary and that the provisions in place will work well enough.

For the avoidance of any doubt, can the Minister confirm that X-rays are not used for age determination purposes? The matter was raised not long ago in this House. It was not apparent to some noble Lords, including noble Lords who are medically qualified, that in 1982 when the then Secretary of State went into the matter in some detail, it was decided that, on the benefit of medical advice—including advice from the British Medical Association—it was inappropriate to use X-rays for the purpose of age determination. The decision was reached because of the possible effects on the health of the child.

Whatever advice and whatever inquiries the Secretary of State may pursue on determining the age of an applicant, I should be grateful for the Minister's assurance that X-rays will not be used.

I was well aware that this provision was not included in the 1999 Act because I moved the same amendment at the time and received the same response.

I do not think that social services are necessarily competent to take this decision. It is an expert medical matter. Rates of development can be very different. In the days when it was still open, I would regularly pass by St. George's School, Westminster. I would see members of the same class coming out of school. It was an inter-racial group. Young people who were clearly from the same class, obviously friends and contemporaries, looked to the casual observer as if in age they might differ by as much as five years. I do not believe that everyone in social services is competent to deal with that. It is a reasonably expert area of medicine.

I hope that the Minister will think further on the matter, but I shall not pursue it this evening. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 114A:

After Clause 22, insert the following new clause—

The Minister is well justified in moving this new clause. However there is one item in it that he should reconsider. Subsection (1)(b) of the proposed new clause states:

"at least one of the dependants is under 17".

Surely that should be "under 18". Elsewhere in the Bill the age of 18 is regarded as the age of maturity. To choose 17 creates a rather unusual situation. I do not expect the Minister to reply at once, but I suggest that on Report he should consider amending it to 18 rather than 17.

I welcome the amendment. We discussed yesterday the role of the visiting committees and the monitor. It would be very helpful if information of this nature was examined very thoroughly in order that no pressure is put on a family to stay in an accommodation centre. There should be an independent assessment of people's needs and there should be no pressure put upon them to stay there.

I warmly support my noble friend's amendment. He knows that I believe six months is a rather long time for a child. I hope to press him to reduce the period.

My question relates to subsection (3) which states that,

"the Secretary of State must consult the person"—

by which he means, I think, the parents. I remind him that the Joint Committee on Human Rights complained that the department—that is, the Home Office—appeared to envisage the children's parents acting as the main channel for children's views. I draw to his attention that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child requires due weight to be given to the views of children—all children—particularly in any judicial or administrative proceedings affecting them. That appears under Articles 12(1) and 12(2). Perhaps my noble friend will confirm that he envisages the children themselves being consulted under the amendment.

This amendment also has been moved in response to representations from my honourable friend Mr Hughes. It is one of considerable importance to these Benches and to our attitude to other parts of the Bill. I am extremely grateful to the Minister for the care and trouble he has taken with it and for his serious efforts to be helpful.

He is of course handicapped by the extremely wide, permissive language in which regulations are now normally drafted. The amendment refers to,

"a continuous period of time specified in the regulations".

Like the Minister, we shall need to reflect and consult during the Summer Recess. Is there any chance whatever of our seeing the draft regulations during the Recess? This would materially assist us in regard to matters to do with Clause 31.

Is the Minister saying that it will always be the case that people will need to be held in the centre during the six plus three period while their appeals are being considered, or will there be some cases where after the six months they may be allowed out? Will the Government allow flexibility in such cases or not? Anything the Minister can say to help us on this matter will be taken very seriously and discussed very carefully.

As to the good question of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, about why not under 18, let me give him the Government's response. This will give him two or three months to reflect on the matter before we come back on Report.

We have made it under 17 because we believe that the situation is different for those of compulsory school age and below. Young people aged 18 and over will be able to seek, for example, voluntary activities in the local community or attend further education outside the accommodation centre, subject to meeting the requirements of colleges. So there is more opportunity for people of that age to address any concerns about developmental needs.

The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, made good points in regard to visiting committees and the monitor. One would expect that these are the kind of issues that could well be within their purview to ensure that people and families were being treated appropriately in the centre.

As to the points raised by my noble friend Lady Whitaker, she will not be surprised to hear—I said this a few minutes ago—that there is no change in our position in regard to six months. It is right that parents or the person in the parental role should be consulted. When conducting his consideration, there is nothing to prevent the Secretary of State taking into account the views of the child. We shall consider slightly more positively how best to do this.

I am absolutely certain that it will come as no shock to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that it is unlikely that draft regulations will be available during the Summer Recess. However, we could have further discussions on these issues in order to focus down on areas of particular concern. I should be delighted to do so if that would be helpful.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clauses 23 to 25 agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 115:

After Clause 25, insert the following new clause—

The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, which we support, has some substance. I therefore hope that the Minister will give it further serious consideration.

In view of the scandals that have plagued a number of children's homes in a variety of English and Welsh counties, it is very important to prevent, by whatever means possible, similar occurrences in accommodation centres. Should they happen, the whole concept of accommodation centres would be brought into grave disrepute.

I thank the noble Baroness for tabling this amendment, which deals with the important issues to which the noble Lords, Lord Dholakia and Lord Hylton, have referred.

We agree that the safeguarding of children in accommodation centres is of paramount importance. In accommodation centres, they will be with their families. Therefore, the situation is not identical to that in other establishments, such as children's homes or local authority secure accommodation, which are for the exclusive use of children not accompanied by their families. Nevertheless, concern for their protection still prevails. That does not remove the need to ensure that people working in accommodation centres are properly vetted and suitable to be working there.

The existing statutory framework will apply, including the child welfare provisions in the Children Act 1989. It is also the case that those disqualified from working with children are already prohibited from employment in those positions that meet the definition of "regulated position" within the scope of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000.

The Criminal Justice and Court Services Act uses the concept of regulated positions and provides that it is a criminal offence for an individual who is disqualified from working with children to apply for, offer to do, accept or undertake any work in a regulated position. It is also an offence for an employer knowingly to offer work to or employ such a disqualified person. A regulated position is so defined that it can relate both to type of establishment and type of work. Thus, for certain types of listed establishments—children's homes, children's hospitals and the like—all employees are considered to be in a regulated position. Noble Lords opposite seek to add accommodation centres to that list.

However, in addition, a person is considered to be in a regulated position if he undertakes work of a type listed in Section 36 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act. Therefore, accommodation centre staff would be in a regulated position if their normal duties involved caring for, training, supervising or being in sole charge of children. Thus, accommodation centre teachers, créche workers and the like will be caught by the legislation. We need to consider more fully the position of ancillary staff.

We shall ensure that any contract with an accommodation centre provider enables the Home Office to approve staff before they start work at the centre. We shall also require the contractor to undertake the highest possible level of criminal records check for each member of staff. Our initial view is that those contractual requirements, together with the existing statutory protection, are sufficient. However, in the light of this amendment, we shall consider whether there is merit in providing some additional statutory protection.

We should like time to consider in more detail the legal position and the extent to which accommodation centres are already covered or not. We should therefore he grateful for an opportunity to reflect on this amendment. Should we conclude that it is necessary, we shall look forward to tabling a suitable amendment at Report stage.

I am half grateful for the Minister's response. My amendment is certainly intended to raise a serious issue. I am grateful for the Minister's explanation of the differences in the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act between the definition of categories of places of employment and listing work of a type. My concern is that volunteers involved in the activities of an accommodation centre, or volunteer members of a visiting advisory group who are not doing remunerative work, may not be caught by the definition of "work of a type". However, I am grateful for the Minister's concession that, having taken the initial view that the Government always regard themselves as right about such matters and do not want anyone to touch their beautiful baby Bill, on this occasion they consider that if they pay attention to my amendment, the baby could grow a little healthier.

The Minister said that he looks forward to returning to the matter on Report. I should say that he will definitely look forward to it because, of course, I shall have an opportunity to consider what he has said and will naturally table an amendment in anticipation of the noble Lord tabling his own. At this stage, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 26 [Facilities]:

moved Amendment No. 116:

Page 13, line 6, leave out "may" and insert "shall"

The noble Baroness said: Clause 26 sets out a list of the facilities and services that can be made available at accommodation centres. Our debates over the past few days have strayed very much into the nature of those services. As presently drafted, the clause simply states that the Secretary of State "may" provide those facilities. As the Immigration Advisory Service has pointed out to me, the Secretary of State should not have a discretion to make arrangements for food and other essential items and services for people who are forced to take up residence in accommodation centres. We believe that there should be a duty on the Secretary of State to provide those services.

People who take up residence in accommodation centres will often have arrived there following long and hazardous journeys. As we have heard over the past two days, they face stays of up to six months or perhaps longer. The services provided by the accommodation centres will be their lifelines and should give them the fairest opportunity properly to present their cases to be allowed to remain here. The services listed in Clause 26 should not be regarded, either in whole or in part, as pick-and-mix options.

As currently worded, the clause would allow the Government to choose to provide perhaps only one or some of all the services listed in Clause 26. That would not be good enough. If the Government are determined to keep the word "may", will the Minister tell the Committee which services the Government "may" at some stage decide not to provide? Will they decline to provide food, money, education and training, health, religious observance? Perhaps the Minister will say which of those facilities the Government may in the future decide are unnecessary? I beg to move.

On this side of the Committee agree with the amendment and are happy to support it. I alluded a short time ago to the extremeley wide flexibility that the wording of regulations allows the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State "may" simply means that he might do this, he might do that, or, indeed, he might do something else. It is not really the imposition of an obligation. In fact, I once described it as an approach that is flexible to the point of contortionism.

The Government talk a great deal about rights and responsibilities, but responsibilities rest on government and well as on others. Those responsibilities involve their admitting occasionally that they actually place a duty on the Secretary of State. To say that the Secretary of State "may" provide food and other essential items is simply not good enough. We support the amendment.

I am not sure that these requirements are covered by regulations under subsection (1). It seems to me that regulations come under subsection (2) of the clause. I believe that my noble friend's amendment has one flaw. I would not have thought that the Secretary of State could be forced to provide anything that he thinks is necessary because of exceptional circumstances. I am not sure, but that seems to me to be a slight flaw. However, the gist of the amendment is extremely important. If the Minister does not like it, I hope that we shall ensure that it happens at some point.

The Government understand the objectives advanced for the amendment but believe the proposition placing a duty on us to provide all the facilities listed in Clause 26 to residents of accommodation centres to be flawed. As drafted, the wording of Clause 26(1) reflects the equivalent wording in Sections 95 and 96 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. In principle, it would be illogical to have a duty to provide particular types of support to residents of accommodation centres, but not in respect of Section 96, which sets out what may be provided by way of asylum support under the 1999 Act.

We are committed to supporting destitute asylum seekers. We are also committed to providing an appropriate range of services to residents of accommodation centres. However, as we discussed yesterday, we are trialling the centres and we do not know what the future will bring. We do not want to tie our hands with a specific duty rather than a more flexible power.

A genuine trial means that we should not have a fixed concept about what might work. One has to start with a clear hypothesis about what one believes would work while being guided by both evidence and experience. We have already said that we are prepared to consider a different configuration of accommodation centres in response to concerns raised about 750 beds. A smaller centre might impact on the types of service that it is practical or necessary for the Home Office to provide. For example, with a smaller centre it may become less likely that there is need to provide transport to and from the centre because residents may be more easily assimilated on local public transport. It is prudent to be prepared for all eventualities. We would not want a provision on the face of the Bill placing an obligation on the Home Office to arrange for the provision of something that it was not sensible for us to provide.

Further, irrespective of the trial, some of the facilities listed in Clause 26 may not be necessary for the Secretary of State to provide in all circumstances. It is arguable whether it would always he necessary for the Home Office to provide religious facilities to all asylum seekers in every accommodation centre. If, for example, there is a convenient local church, or mosque, say, it might be sensible to make use of that rather than go to the expense of providing dedicated on-site facilities for those particular denominations. However, as I indicated yesterday—I hope, clearly—we will provide on-site facilities in the trial centres.

The use of the word "may" does not mean that we have any intention of ducking out of our responsibilities towards destitute asylum seekers. As a matter of policy, we will provide the following facilities in the trial centres: basic living needs; education for children on site; primary healthcare; purposeful activities for adults, including English language training; facilities for religious observance; interpretation facilities; assistance with travel to appeal hearings and asylum interviews, in the event that these do not take place on site, and the initial journey to the centre; and access to legal advice.

In the light of the assurances that I have given about what will happen in the trial centres and the argumentation for why we need to keep an open mind about how best to support asylum seekers, I hope that the noble Baroness will agree to withdraw the amendment.

Is not the solution to the problem simply to take my noble friend's amendment and perhaps add some wording to it so that, for example, it would read:

"The Secretary of State shall arrange for such facilities as he considers reasonable to be provided"?

That would have the effect of putting a duty on the Secretary of State to provide such facilities if it was reasonable for them to be provided. There may be another more appropriate set of words, but, at present, the Secretary of State can fail to provide the listed facilities in the clause and there is no comeback against him. However, if, as I suggest, the word "shall" was included, alongside a duty, there would be a comeback against the Secretary of State if he was manifestly unreasonable in not making such provision. That would be a better state of affairs.

When outlining the list of facilities to be provided in the four pilot centres, the Minister made no mention of means of communication with the applicants' legal advisers. Does the noble Lord recall that some difficulties arose in Yarl's Wood because faxes that went to and fro between the residents in the centre and their legal advisers were occasionally passed through the Immigration Service and were thereby delayed for periods of up to 36 hours? Can the Minister confirm that proper and sufficient facilities will be provided at these centres to enable residents to communicate with their legal advisers by fax, telephone, or e-mail, so that they will not have to wait hours in a queue in order to use them?

Although I support the views expressed by the noble Lord, is he not anticipating a later debate?

I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I am certain that such access will be in place. Indeed, in common sense arid practicality, it needs to be in place to enable people to communicate with their advisers.

I should like to reflect upon the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, although I wonder whether it actually takes us back to the point at which we started. However, the Government arc not prepared to move from what I said in my initial response to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. There is always a duty on the Secretary of State to act reasonably. Therefore, as Members of the Committee know that it is already clearly implied, it is not essential to put such a provision in the Bill.

I cannot help but say that I am disappointed by the noble Lord's response. Although these centres are being set up as trials, what goes to the heart of the issue is the fact that such centres are the only place in which 3,000 people will live every six months. It is important for us to get this right from the first instance. My noble friend Lord Lucas was trying to provide some way out of the impasse and helpfully suggested the idea of some reasonableness as a test. Unfortunately, as the Minister observed, that brings us back to where we started. We return to the subjective test of the Secretary of State. From what the Government have said so far, I do not see enough evidence to suggest that I should trust that test.

The good will of the Minister is beyond reproach, but I must take into account what we have been told throughout the previous three days of debate. Despite the fact that the Bill has passed through the other place, we have not been promised any sight of the regulations, or any information about what will really happen in these accommodation centres, before we reach the Report stage.

Moreover, notwithstanding the Minister's assurances—and however well-meaning he may be—I am reminded that behind any government Minister there looms the brooding presence of the Treasury. I should not rely on any civil servants in the Treasury, any more than I would on the Ministers in that department. But I wonder at the back of my mind what would happen if, during a future spending round, the Chancellor of the Exchequer decided that the money given to service supply at accommodation centres should not be increased, or even that it should be reduced. What would a future Home Secretary have to do to decide which of the services should be pruned? Might he decide that some services are not appropriate? Might he decide that it is all right if a church is available within one or 10 miles, whereas a disabled person might need on-site services?

I do not intend to draw out the argument, but I am deeply disappointed. There are times when it is important to provide a clear picture of what shall be provided for those whose lives will be in these centres. I feel that, on this occasion, I must test the opinion of the Committee.