---

Viscount Bridgeman: In general we support the measure. The interlocking of the accommodation considerations and community service is to be welcomed if for no other reason than that it enhances the individual's self-respect and, one hopes, makes for better relations with the community.

I make one point. Can the Minister assure us that the pilot scheme will bear in mind on the one hand the necessity for a representative and effective trial of the scheme, and on the other hand that there are areas of this country that are obviously much more sensitive to the whole question of immigration and asylum than others? Will the Government bear that in mind when they choose the locality of the test scheme? Otherwise, we support the order.

Lord Dholakia: I welcome this measure—it is about time. We have in the past argued quite substantially about the need for asylum seekers whose cases are being discussed or who have failed and whom we cannot return to be allowed to work here until such time as their cases have been resolved. I have raised this issue on a number of occasions with the Minister. There are some situations in which it is vital that people who are being persecuted, who are desperate to find accommodation although their case has not been proved, at least have the opportunity to contribute in the new community within which they find themselves. I was pleased when the Minister in the other place, Des Browne, used the former Home Secretary's phrase "something for something".

In the debate in the other place they talked about the involvement of the YMCA as part of this project. Will the Minister explain why the YMCA was chosen, whether other organisations were considered, what supervising quality will be available and the extent to which that will be relevant to many of the qualified people who are asylum seekers?

Let me make my case. When the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, was in the Home Office dealing with immigration matters, he talked, quite genuinely, about a serious concern in his area that, at the height of the foot and mouth crisis, we were importing vets from Germany to slaughter our animals when there were many qualified asylum seekers in this country who could have provided that service, yet we were not prepared for them to do any work. That seems shameful.

The BMA recently produced a report about refugee doctors and the extent to which they can contribute. Something for something is good, but we should be looking at how we give some dignity to these people. I am not saying we should keep them in this country but if there are opportunities for them to contribute
 
22 Mar 2005 : Column GC84
 
economically to this country, if there are facilities available and we cannot recruit our own people, then it is right and proper that we should look at that provision.

We need to be very careful about how we ask people to provide services. Take, for example, Southall, where there is a substantial community from the Indian subcontinent as well as a large influx of refugees from Somalia. Contact between these groups is adversarial, and when the Minister talks about the need for some of the people providing services in ethnic minority communities, we must ensure that there is a match between people in the way in which they provide services and not create a further crisis for which a tremendous amount of insight is required. For that reason, I ask the Minister to consider seriously the role of local organisations such as community relations structures, and what advice and help is available.

I suggest that some of the key refugee organisations should be consulted. The Immigration Advisory Service and the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants have people with masses of knowledge which should be used to offer assistance in this respect.

My final point relates to the age of the individuals who will be asked to do the work. Will the Minister confirm that no one under the age of 18 will be used for this purpose, as I understand that that is the limit under which they will be considered minors?

The second point is that if both husband and wife in a family seeking asylum, having been refused asylum, are asked to provide "something for something", what will happen to the children and the family structure? Who will look after it? There are a great number issues for which many of the answers will be available in the community.

I am glad that we have moved forward. I await the day when we can say to people, "Yes, provide us with proper services", and pay them proper wages. We can give them their dignity and then, when the time comes, if they do not qualify they can go back to their country.

The Earl of Sandwich: As the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said, it is a very positive order—although gently introduced—and I, too, certainly welcome it. Noting the reference to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, I was hopeful that there would be some evidence of scrutiny, which I believe is important, but I can see only one line in the annex. This is alongside fluoridation, pistachios from Iran and such other orders as are proceeding rapidly through the House. It is an indication of the amount of legislation which goes unnoticed under the heading, "Instruments to which the Committee does not draw the special attention of both Houses". However, that also indicates the value of the order.

I have only a couple of small points to make to the Minister. I am sorry that I have not notified him but I know that he will be able to answer them from his knowledge.
 
22 Mar 2005 : Column GC85
 

The Explanatory Memorandum shows that the Home Office is doing its best to be flexible to the so-called failed asylum seekers. I have difficulty with the term "failed asylum seekers". It may be technically accurate but it always seems to me to be judgmental.

The Committee may remember that I have been especially concerned with those who fell foul of Section 55 of the 2002 Act, which meant that if you applied after three days you could not claim. The position was slightly improved by the High Court last year in the Limbuela case, so the numbers have certainly fallen of those who come into that category.

I understand that hard case support is extended to those who declare their intention to return to a safe country but to whom access is denied by the country concerned. There are continuing questions about what constitutes a "safe country". For example, I understand that at the moment the Democratic Republic of Congo is refusing to issue the necessary papers to allow failed asylum seekers to return. What is being done by the Home Office or the Foreign Office to put pressure on countries such as the DRC?

The problem of accommodation is getting more and more difficult in such cases. They are limbo cases, if you like; the people are ready to go but have not been able to depart. I have heard that hostels such as the YMCA are rejecting these people and that their numbers are growing. Can the Minister confirm that the department is doing something about this?

Secondly, as regards the main point, I am intrigued by the condition of participation in community activities that appear to the Secretary of State to be beneficial to the public. As the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said, why is this suddenly available to failed asylum seekers when genuine asylum seekers—in different categories, admittedly—are being denied the opportunity to work?

I know that this is a pilot project but it will require a structure and we will need evidence of how it will work. I hope that the non-governmental organisations and the Churches will be fully involved. Who will decide on the kind of activity to be undertaken and who will supervise it? That is all the more important in a pilot scheme.

Like the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, I am pleased that the community activities will give people the opportunity to learn skills that will be useful in their home community; as the Minister said, we place a great deal of emphasis here on social cohesion. However, he must admit that we are also referring to a number of unskilled jobs such as road sweeping. What is the plan of action? Is it to be casual labour, or is anything more structured being planned with some of our further education colleges and so on? If the Minister does not know the answer, perhaps he will be kind enough to reply in writing.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I should like first to thank the three noble Lords who have contributed to this brief discussion, and I am grateful for their general support for the scheme. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord
 
22 Mar 2005 : Column GC86
 
Dholakia, seemed more welcoming than usual on this particularly sensitive issue, and I am very grateful for that, in particular, because I know that he has his ear very close to the ground on all issues relating to asylum, asylum applications and the treatment of failed asylum seekers.

The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, got it right when he said that this is about helping failed asylum seekers regather some self respect, which is an important part of the scheme. I hope that in its workings, it will enable those who go through the process to take something away with them, as well as give "something for something".

In response to the first point raised by the noble Viscount, yes of course we will be very sensitive to where the placements are. That issue has obviously loomed large in our considerations. In the process of consulting, we have worked very carefully with community organisations and those who represent asylum seekers. On that point, we have had very fruitful and helpful discussions with the AAS, which has played a part in bringing us to the scheme as it is currently set up.

In general, it would be fair to say that we wanted to utilise the expertise of the voluntary sector in delivering the scheme. We invited expressions of interest and we received six responses. As regards the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, we will look to the YMCA to identify appropriate activities in partnership with other community groups.

The scheme will initially be set up in a single area, so that it can test what processes will be necessary to deliver it. As yet, no decision has been made about where the first phase of the scheme will be based. Clearly, because of sensitivity issues, we will consult the relevant area and work closely with the local authority before we make a decision.

We wish to see the scheme work well. As regards the administration of the scheme, in terms of the regulations that I have described very carefully, the Secretary of State has a power to appoint one person to supervise or manage the performance and the participation in activities by another person. It also allows the Secretary of State to enter into a contract with a local authority or any other person to provide arrangements for community activities. There will be a proper administrative process put in place, which we are confident we will achieve with the YMCA. As for the start date for the scheme, we are in discussions with the YMCA on that, but it should be within the next two or three months.

The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, asked why we do not let asylum seekers work. It is important that we maintain a difference between immigration and asylum, and it is wrong to blur the boundaries. We do not want to risk confusion in the public eye. So the two processes must be distinct and we have to treat people differently. We are trying to ensure that those who are failed asylum seekers have the opportunity to contribute something in a structured way.
 
22 Mar 2005 : Column GC87
 

The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, raised the issue of husbands and wives. Where there is a husband and wife with a dependant child we would not normally expect both parents to take part in the scheme, obviously for reasons of providing support to dependants. Regulation 4(2)(e) makes specific reference to the situation where someone is caring for a dependant, which I hope covers that point.

The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, is right, we need flexibility. As for his question on the Democratic Republic of Congo, I shall have to write to him on that. The situation is very complicated and I cannot provide the noble Earl with an answer to that question today.

I am grateful for the support of the three noble Lords who have expressed their interest and been concerned to ensure that we get this right and approach the issue sensitively. I assure the Grand Committee that we will, because we want this to work. We see this as an important pilot. We will want to advance slowly, but we do so based on early successes.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (Code of Practice) Order 2005

4.51 p.m.

---