| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South): I thank the Home Secretary for giving way, and I apologise that pressure of time has meant that I have not attended the entire debate. Is the Home Secretary aware that the chairman of the Human Rights Commission in Northern Ireland has written a letter--I am not yet sure whether it has been sent to the right hon. Gentleman or to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland--pointing out some of the anomalies that will cause problems in the courts in Northern Ireland?
I recognise that this is a reserved matter, but the measure must operate alongside Northern Ireland human rights legislation, which gives people equal rights and allows them to take the Home Secretary to court. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to reconsider the matter and perhaps table amendments in the other place?
Mr. Straw:
I was not specifically aware of the letter to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I shall make myself aware of it and ensure that he is given a reply. If amendments in the other place are necessary they will be tabled, but I do not want to anticipate decisions that I may make in the light of consideration of the letter.
I detect general approbation in the Chamber for the changes that we propose in new clause 6. They will make it absolutely clear that the benefits for children of the Children Act will not be lost if an asylum seeker and his or her family becomes the responsibility of the Asylum Support Directorate, but instead will be transferred from the relevant local authority social services department to that directorate.
To pick up a point raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), if it should happen that the Secretary of State refuses to take responsibility for an asylum seeker, that person would automatically revert to being the responsibility of the local authority's social services department--unless the refusal was not made by the Asylum Support Directorate but was a wilful refusal of a reasonable offer of support by the asylum seeker.
However, even in those rare circumstances in which a person refuses an offer that is considered to be reasonable and a reasonable discharge of the Secretary of State's duty, the children would become the responsibility of the relevant social services department. The adult who refuses such an offer, I am sorry to say, would have to look to his laurels as, under our homelessness legislation, would any United Kingdom citizen who wilfully refused an offer of accommodation.
Mr. Clappison:
The children would be taken into care.
Mr. Straw:
That would, of course, be the ultimate decision that the social services department might have to make--as it would in respect of any other child considered to be at risk under the provisions of the Children Act.
That connects with the point that I want to make to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), in particular. The only duties under the Children Act being transferred from the local authority social services department to the Asylum Support Directorate at the Home Office are those in respect of accommodation and essential living needs. The local social services department's much wider duty in respect of the welfare of children remains continuous and is unaffected by new clause 6 or by any other measure in the Bill.
Mr. Clappison:
Is the Home Secretary aware that the same points were made in Committee in defence of the original clause 99--now clause 108--by the Under-Secretary? Is he aware also that children's organisations such as the UK committee of UNICEF have looked at new clause 6? It stated:
Mr. Straw:
I am sorry to say that the hon. Gentleman, uncharacteristically, has missed the point. There is no dubiety about the fact that, under new clause 6, the responsibility on a local authority to provide what amount to the Children Act provisions--accommodation and essential living needs in respect of children in need--is transferring from the social services department to the Asylum Support Directorate. The concern expressed by my hon. Friends about what started off as clause 99 was that the local authorities were being relieved of their duty under the Children Act in respect of asylum seekers' children, but that no corresponding duty was being placed on the Secretary of State and the Asylum Support Directorate.
We have rectified that. The answers given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and me about the welfare of children other than in respect of accommodation and
essential living needs are the same, because that duty of welfare will remain with the local authority social services department. I hope that that explains the matter.
Mr. Clappison:
The Home Secretary said earlier that the local authority would still be able to care for a child who has fallen through the safety net, but the point is that it would not be able to care for that child under section 17 of the Children Act. The same points were made in Committee by the Under-Secretary, and the Government have not moved from that. The Government are taking away local authorities' section 17 responsibilities, which are intended as a safety net.
Mr. Straw:
I do not want to labour a point that I have explained three or four times. I am sure that most hon. Members in the Chamber understand it. The difference between new clause 6 and what began as clause 99 is that there is now a very clear duty imposed on the Secretary of State in respect of the obligations to provide accommodation and essential living needs that otherwise rest with a local authority's social services department. That is absolutely clear.
Moreover, I listened carefully to the remarks of the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), but I was no clearer at the end of them whether he was supporting the arrangements for a national system of support for asylum seekers, or opposing it. It is also evident that he has received no assistance from any other Conservative Members. I do not recall one speaking either in his favour or against him, and for a large part of the debate he was alone on the Conservative Benches, apart from the occasional Whip.
Mr. Clappison:
Will the Home Secretary give way?
Mr. Straw:
Of course I will, if the hon. Gentleman will relieve our darkness and say whether he supports the arrangements in principle.
Mr. Clappison:
The Under-Secretary will confirm that we supported them in Committee. This debate is not about the arrangements, although I can understand why the Home Secretary wants to get on to that subject. It is about protecting children. We are worried about whether new clause 6 goes far enough to protect children and remedy the defects of the original clause 99. I do not think that the Home Secretary has gone far enough yet.
Mr. Straw:
I look forward to the Conservative amendments that will be tabled in the other place, but it is interesting that the hon. Gentleman's concern is not widely shared in the rest of the Conservative party.
Mr. Clappison:
That is a cheap remark.
Mr. Straw:
I think that it is entirely fair to point out that no other Conservative Member was present while such an important measure was being debated.
Mr. Dawson:
Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that section 17 of the Children Act does not meet the accommodation and financial support needs of anyone in
Mr. Straw:
I can reassure my hon. Friend on that point, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary says that no asylum speaker has been found begging in those circumstances. I appreciate the spectre of concern, and that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre has great expertise as one professionally responsible for implementing the principles of the Children Act 1989. However, the purpose of the Bill, the Asylum Support Directorate and the mixture of vouchers and cash is to ensure that no child and no family are destitute while an application for asylum is being dealt with.
The arrangements continue to apply to families even after applications for asylum have been dealt with, rejected, rejected again on appeal, and rejected by the divisional court or the High Court. They still apply when the family is waiting for removal, until those refused asylum or exceptional leave to remain exit the country. Those given asylum or exceptional leave to remain switch swiftly to the cash benefit arrangements that apply to any citizen or individual with normal residence in the UK.
Amendment No. 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, goes to the heart of one side of the argument about whether we should have a mixed system of cash and vouchers or stick, at least for some asylum seekers, to cash alone. Some people who have heard the debate might take from it two errors. First, they may believe that asylum seekers receive social security benefits. As my hon. Friend knows, that is not the case. A good half of asylum seekers who apply in-country have no entitlement to social security benefits, but are entitled under the Children Act 1989 or the National Assistance Act 1948 to benefits in kind if they are single or to a mixture of benefits in kind and cash if they are a family.
Secondly, and more importantly, some people may fall into the error of thinking that everyone who applies for asylum will have his or her application recognised as genuine and well-founded under the 1951 convention or the ECHR and be given refugee status or exceptional leave to remain. The UK's record is extremely good. The hon. Member for Hallam cannot have it both ways. The courts and the over-slated Immigration and Nationality Directorate have interpreted our obligations under the 1951 convention more widely than has been the case in many other countries. I want the proud tradition of this country to continue when asylum seekers meet convention criteria or the criteria set out in article 3 of the ECHR, as it has for the 4,000 refugees admitted from Kosovo.
"We remain of the view that it is inappropriate for asylum-seeking families with children to be excluded from obtaining accommodation".
The same concerns exist now as existed about the original clause 99.
8.30 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |