| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
5 pm
Such an assurance was the basis of the Children Act 1989, which Barnardos described as
Mr. Straw:
I have sought to give the assurances that the hon. Gentleman is seeking. However, is he saying that he believes that the current arrangements--in which the burden falls disproportionately on a handful of local authorities--should continue?
Mr. Clappison:
The first part of the Home Secretary's intervention seemed to contradict the second part. He has been attempting to tell us that the Bill is as good as the 1989 Act and that it will provide the same protection, and we are questioning whether that is so. The matter requires examination. The Home Secretary seemed also to be saying that the Bill will not offer the same protection.
Mr. Straw:
The whole purpose of new clause 6 is to transfer the duty for asylum-seeker families that arises under the 1989 Act to the Secretary of State; but it amounts to the same duty. The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that he believes that that duty should be undertaken only by individual social services departments, and that he therefore disagrees with many Conservative-controlled local authorities, such as Westminster, which say that the burden is falling intolerably on them and should not continue. Will he clarify the point?
Mr. Clappison:
The Home Secretary is meandering on to an entirely different path. The issue at stake is whether the provisions of the Children Act--which has been in force since 1989, through much of the life of the previous Government--will continue. Will future arrangements for children preserve the same duty?
Mr. Straw:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again, but I need to press him on this point. We--but also Conservative-controlled local authorities--need to know whether he is saying that current
There is common ground on the issue of the duties imposed by the 1989 Act, although who should bear those duties is a separate issue. However, the hon. Gentleman has been dodging the question that I have asked him three times. Is he saying that the current system--in which individual local authorities support asylum seekers without national arrangements--should continue?
Mr. Clappison:
It is a separate point. However, if the Home Secretary wants to move on to the matter of dispersal--[Interruption.] That is the issue exciting his colleagues from Kent--the hon. Members for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) and for Erith and Thamesmead (Mr. Austin)--and perhaps other Labour Members. The Home Secretary may be aware that, in Committee, the Opposition--unlike all his colleagues in Committee--made it clear that, in principle, we did not oppose, but supported, the Government's proposal. If Ministers look at the Committee's proceedings, they will see that that is so. We did not oppose what the Home Secretary was trying to do, but were asking about the protection of children, which is quite a separate matter.
Dr. Ladyman:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Clappison:
Yes, the hon. Gentleman was on the Committee and he will be able to confirm my point.
Dr. Ladyman:
I put it to the hon. Gentleman that, in Kent, the burden of supporting children under the Children Act currently falls on the pocket of council tax payers. The Government's amendment would transfer the cost to the Secretary of State. Is he or is he not in favour of that transfer?
Mr. Clappison:
The hon. Gentleman will remember that, in Committee, we supported what the Government were trying to do and that it was his hon. Friends who had difficulty. Incidentally, I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has now found his voice, which was not often heard in the Committee. We made our support quite clear, even though the Government's aims are controversial in some quarters. I know that some hon. Members view the system as being one of forced dispersal, and we have some concerns about the details, but that is a separate point. My question to the Home Secretary now is whether the protection being given under new clause 6 is as good as the protection currently available under the Children Act. New clause 6 is intended to look as though it offers greater protection, but does it in fact merely draw a veil over a hole that stubbornly remains?
The new clause is certainly complicated. Subsections (3) and (4) are its key provisions, but subsection (5) continues to deny children protection under section 17 of the Children Act. Do subsections (3) and (4) protect children by allowing for the provision of accommodation and living needs? Under subsections (3) and (4), the Secretary of State decides whether the accommodation or support being provided for the child is adequate. Many of those involved, including the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, are highly critical of the
substantial number of provisions in the Bill containing that form of test, which leaves matters at the mercy of the Secretary of State--in practice, at the mercy of officialdom.
An even more significant issue arises when we consider how the Secretary of State is to intervene to protect those children who he decides are not being provided with adequate accommodation and living needs. In those circumstances, the Secretary of State must exercise his powers under clause 80 to offer help. The problem is that it may well be that the Secretary of State has already exercised his powers under clause 80 and that it is that exercise of powers which has created the situation in which the child is going without accommodation or support. Given the rigidity and inadequacy of clause 80 and the asylum support system, that is all too possible; and, as the hon. Member for South Thanet will remember, expert witnesses said that that might happen.
Those expert witnesses also warned of another danger inherent in the Government's system. We all want asylum seekers to be dispersed, but the system is so rigid and inflexible that asylum seekers might well be dispersed from Kent and London, but end up drifting back to Kent and London because of the statutory prohibition on their preferences being taken into account.
Mr. Mike Gapes (Ilford, South):
I represent a London borough in which there are many Somali asylum seekers, and I am in favour of a dispersal policy, provided there is adequate support in other parts of the country. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that people would be able to reject the accommodation and support provided in the north of England and go back to a London borough, and that it would then be for the borough to shoulder the burden of their support, even though such boroughs are already experiencing the problems that have triggered the need for a dispersal policy?
Mr. Clappison:
The hon. Gentleman was not a member of the Committee, so he may not realise that, in Committee, we explained that we were in favour of dispersal, but that we were concerned that dispersal without any opportunity to take preferences into account--the Secretary of State will be statutorily forbidden to take preferences into account--would create a far higher risk of asylum seekers being dispersed to one part of the country but drifting back to another. In short, we wanted to avoid the sort of problems identified by the hon. Gentleman.
Let us take the case originally brought to the attention of the Special Standing Committee by the Immigration Law Practitioners Association as a critique of the original clause 99 and clause 108. I shall quote briefly from the ILPA evidence to the Committee:
The Government have ignored suggestions from the Conservatives and others that would have made the system a little more flexible by allowing some preferences to be met. Asylum seekers would still be dispersed around the country to relieve the pressure on Kent and London, but there would be less risk of their drifting back. Local authorities and others in those areas have experienced that and warned us about it in their evidence to the Special Standing Committee.
How will subsections (3) and (4) of the new clause work in the case put in the expert evidence of ILPA? It is the parents who reject an offer. We are concerned about the welfare of children, who should not suffer under any circumstances, whoever their parents are and whatever their basis for being in the country. The intention of the original Children Act 1989 was that any child on British soil should benefit from its comprehensive protection which puts their interests first. In the case put forward by ILPA, would a different offer be made? Why does the new clause exclude any support under section 17 of the Children Act 1989, whereas the original clause excluded only support under subsection (1) of that section?
We need to consider the Government's words to see whether they give effect to the Children Act. It is all very well talking about a transfer of responsibilities. Will the protection be as good as it is under the Children Act? In a written answer on 9 June, the Home Secretary said that the assistance to children of asylum seekers under the new clause would
"a landmark piece of legislation implemented with all-party support establishing the principle of acting in the best interests of the child and providing a framework for protecting and safeguarding the welfare of all children who were on British support."
Barnardos goes on to say:
"We are aware that the Government's intention in clause 108 is to only remove families, whose needs arise out of their being destitute, from section 17 of the Children Act. This introduces a discriminatory element into the working of the Act and violates its overarching principle that the child's welfare shall be the court's paramount consideration."
Back in 1989, the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston, speaking for the then Opposition, said:
"It is to assert the paramountcy of the child's interest that we have tabled the amendment."--[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 18 May 1989; c. 137.]
Today, however, the roles have been reversed. We still support the principle of the 1989 Act--that all children on British soil should be given the same protection--and are now seeking an assurance from the Government that that principle shall continue in legislation. We want there to be a safety net for all children, because no child should go without protection. Labour Members may care to reflect on the fact that the previous Government were prepared to give such an assurance.
"What of the child whose destitute asylum seeking parents 'may' qualify for s74 support, but have disentitled themselves by rejecting an offer of accommodation in a far flung location? Is the child to be separated from them and taken into care for the lack of s17 powers to meet his needs within his family?"--[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 17 March 1999; c. 262.]
That scenario is all too possible, given that the Bill forbids the new agency from taking preferences into account. The Government appear to have given no ground in the new clause. They have questions to answer on the protection of children and their welfare.
"be comparable to what would otherwise be available under section 17 of the Children Act 1989."--[Official Report, 9 June 1999; Vol. 332, c. 333.]
He has used similar words today. The word "comparable" creates a nagging doubt in my mind. The word is often used by officialdom in such circumstances. The hon. Member for South Thanet looks puzzled. We want "comparable" to mean "as good as". We want an assurance that the protection will be not just comparable with, but the same as, that afforded by the Children Act, the point of which was to provide a comprehensive safety net for all children.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |