Labour and Tories combine to prevent Asylum Bill defeat

The Government and the Tories combined to prevent a backbench rebellion over proposals in the controversial Asylum Bill on the education of refugee children.

More than 30 Labour MPs, including former ministers, had intended to vote against the Government's plans to force children of asylum-seekers to be educated in new "accommodation centres".

David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, promised that no child living in proposed new accommodation centres would be deprived of state schooling for longer than nine months.

But less than two hours before a threatened rebellion on the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill, Mr Blunkett said he would bring forward "new safeguards" to meet their concerns. Amendments, which will be tabled in the Lords after the summer recess, would ensure that all children are assessed by educationists after six months in the centres, the Home Secretary said.

If Ofsted and the local education authority judge that it is in "the best interests of the child" to move him or her to a mainstream school, they will be allowed to do so. And where a family's case remains undecided after a period of nine months, the child will have the option of leaving the centre without a further review.

Home Office officials said the new safeguards were being introduced because although most cases would be determined in two months, appeals could delay the time asylum-seekers were held in the centres.

In one of the biggest potential backbench rebellions of this parliament, Frank Dobson, Peter Kilfoyle and Glenda Jackson were expected to be among 35 Labour MPs voting against what they called "educational segregation" of refugee children. But a timetable for detailed debate on amendments left insufficient time to discuss an amendment which would have prevented the move.

Organisations including Save the Children, the National Union of Teachers, the British Medical Association, Oxfam and the Transport and General Workers' Union launched a campaign yesterday to get the proposals thrown out, condemning the Government for "sending out a disturbing message".

But Mr Blunkett stuck to the principle of educating children in the specialist centres, where they will live with their parents, rather than sending them to state schools as at present. He said that because most cases were rejected, it was more unfair on children to integrate them in local schools and then deport them and their families.

"It is not evil or discriminatory to educate children in an accommodation centre where they receive mother tongue and English support and broader education and inspected by the office of standards and supported by the local education authority but not placing an undue burden on local schools," he said.

The Home Secretary also said he would bring in other measures to "extend and improve" the scope of the Bill. Hauliers who refused to pay fines for bringing illegal immigrants into Britain, or defaulted on the fines, could have their vehicles confiscated under the new proposals.

The new civil penalty system will impose a sliding scale of fines up to £4,000, replacing the fixed-penalty system that was ruled unlawful last year. Moves will also be taken to tackle incidents of "asylum shopping", in which refugees travel to Britain seeking higher benefits payments after having gained asylum elsewhere.

Mr Blunkett said the Government was also opening new managed migration routes for workers who would benefit Britain's economy, adding: "We are not fortress Britain".

Simon Hughes, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said it was "disgraceful" that large parts of the Bill might not be debated in the Commons.

"We will be pushing for the Bill to go back to committee so that difficult and controversial areas of public policy can be properly debated, rather than being pushed through by the Government with its huge majority," he said.

Seventeen Labour backbenchers rebelled later in the debate over plans to introduce tough new measures to deter "manifestly unfounded" claims without a right of appeal. But the government amendment was carried by a majority of 308.