Sixth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation |
|
Mr. Browne: I intervene because this issue can be settled quite simply. The distinction between those above and below 18 is made because the latter are not adults. As the hon. Gentleman will know, in many aspects of child care law—if I may use that descriptive phrase—there are definitions that allow people under the age of 18 to be considered and treated as if they were children. They are not adults. We felt that that age, not age 16, was the appropriate level at which to make the cut-off. Age 16, of course, is the point at which people can work and at which we issue them with national insurance numbers. Mr. Malins: I am grateful to the Minister. He has given an explanation of the Government’s position, and I accept it. I was interested in knowing the background. Who will select the work? In his opening remarks, the Minister referred to the new partnership and the YMCA. Will he tell us a little more about the YMCA’s involvement? Someone, somewhere will have to select the activities that will be undertaken by those in receipt of the support. I should be pleased to know what methods there will be for monitoring the work to make sure that it is done properly. The sanction for not doing the work, or for
Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend makes some lucid points. Does he know how those people will be traced? If he does not, will he press the Minister to tell us? Will they be given a national insurance number? Will they have an immigration number? Clearly, when they go to an organisation such as the YMCA, it will need some bona fides. Does my hon. Friend know what those will be? Mr. Malins: I thank my hon. Friend, who has raised a most interesting question. I think that the position will probably be—the Minister will come back to me if I am wrong—a little more straightforward than with other communities. To be in receipt of hard-case support, so to speak, the failed asylum seeker who cannot, for proper reasons, be removed to their country of origin, will already have to be in touch with the authorities. The authorities will know where the failed asylum seeker is. Therefore, that contact ought to be maintained, and I am certain that some appropriate immigration number will be attached to them. Mr. Browne: The hon. Gentleman knows and understands how the NASS system works. All the people involved will have what is known as an applicant registration card, which is part of an electronically based system that identifies people as asylum seekers. However, whether or not those people have such a card or such registration, the expectation is that the YMCA will have regular contact with individuals. It will introduce people into their placements and support them. Although, for obvious reasons, failed asylum seekers do not have national insurance numbers, the YMCA will have their full details, including their address, and all the information that it needs from NASS. Mr. Malins: I am grateful for that intervention. My next point is about the hours that such a person might typically be expected to work or to contribute per week. The regulations set out a maximum of 35 hours, but the Minister’s original view last year was that it might typically involve 15 to 20 hours a week, and I think that he has told us today that that remains the case. Such work is essentially part time, although the regulations make provision for it to be up to 35 hours a week, which is full time. Will the Minister tell us a little more about the circumstances in which he envisages that a person might be involved for 35 hours rather than 15 or 20 hours, and what criteria might be used to reach a conclusion? My question about who will run the scheme has in a sense been answered. I suspect that the Minister is telling me that it will be run together by the Government and the YMCA. I planned to ask, and still do, whether the probation service would be involved at all. I ask because the only parallel scheme in our system that I can think of is the community
Can we have a little more detail on other aspects of the scheme? For example, will people be required to be trained by Government or other organisations in order to monitor and/or organise the schemes? The Minister has said that transport will be covered, but will he tell us about the sort of person who will assess the quality of work and commitment from the failed asylum seeker and make a judgment about when there has been a breach? I think that I am right in saying that any person whose support is withdrawn as a result of failure to co-operate—I use my own phrase rather than the one in the regulations—with the work system has a right of appeal against such a decision. I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed that. There is of course the old question of cost. Will the scheme cost any money, and if so, how much? The Minister may, quite properly, say that he cannot give a comprehensive answer because he does not know how many people will be involved. However, to illustrate the fact that costs may be involved, one has to look only at the cost of community service orders. We have had some interesting answers to that question over the years. I recall that Baroness Scotland gave an answer last summer about the average cost of a 40-hour community punishment order, which is about the lowest that can be given. To illustrate the point, I should say that such people normally do between six and eight hours per weekend. Therefore, they do far less per week and might have to do eight weeks’ work to amount up to a 40-hour community punishment order. Baroness Scotland said that such an order cost just over £700. The London probation service website said last summer that the average cost of a community punishment order per defendant was £1,500. That clashed slightly with an assessment in 2002–03 by local probation boards, which suggested that the average-length community punishment order was 116 hours at a cost of just over £2,000 each to the public purse. I do not know how any of that could translate into an estimate of the costs of running the scheme that we are debating. There are bound to be some costs, and I hope that the Minister will tell us more about them. For how long will people carry out such community work? I am sure that the authorities will work on a case-by-case basis, but if failed asylum seeker A co-operated in every respect with regard to removal and it was clear that they would be returning within a month, the Minister should confirm that they would not be expected to do any community work in that short period. What if the period is longer? I asked the Minister how many people might be affected in total—we think in the region of 500—but will many be affected for six months or a year? That is important, because doing 35 or even 20 hours of community work a week for a year or six months is an interesting proposition. There must
I suppose that the longer the period of work, the greater the cost. If I work for 20 hours a week for the next six months and am to be monitored, if monitoring is to have any meaning whatsoever, the cost will increase. For how long should a person be on the scheme before it becomes unrealistic? How many people might be on the scheme for that maximum length of time, and what is the minimum time that it would be appropriate? Will the scheme produce value for money, or will there be a subsidy to achieve the proper aim of creating social cohesion that might otherwise be missing? I asked the Minister where the pilot area will be—sensibly, there will be a pilot scheme—and he properly responded that it had yet to be decided. I am sure that he will tell us as soon as the area is decided; he might even give us a clue about what areas are in mind at the moment. Will he also give us a clue about when the scheme will start? Does he plan not to start it until next year or, subject to the regulations being agreed—they would come into effect at the end of this month—does he propose that the pilot scheme will be running by July, August or September? The Minister and I often debate robustly, but always with good humour, issues of asylum, and I have been critical of aspects of the Government’s asylum policy. It is fair to say that all hon. Members recognise that there are genuine difficulties with removals of failed asylum seekers to certain countries, and I recall mentioning Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, China, Iran and Zimbabwe last year. The situation is constantly moving, but will the Minister give us an update—if not now, in a letter—on the problems with removals to those countries and whether the position may change for the better or worse? I thank him again. If he is unable to respond to my comments today, I shall, as always, be delighted to receive correspondence from him, as will my hon. Friends. 10.45 amMr. Harris: I was surprised by the comments of my hon. Friend the Minister about the timing of the general election, which were echoed by the hon. Member for Woking, because, if this Parliament goes its full term, we may see you in the Chair, Mr. Chidgey, many times between now and June 2006. Unless my hon. Friend has information to which the rest of us are not privy, which he has shared with the hon. Member for Woking, it will be an unusual turn of events. I was a member of the Standing Committee in which the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill was scrutinised. Mr. Malins: Very well. Mr. Harris: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am delighted that we are discussing the regulations today because they were an essential part of the 2004 Act. The Minister’s remarks go the heart of the issue
Members of the other camp are hostile to the Government because they consider that the Government are being far too strict towards asylum seekers when refusing so many of them permanent leave to remain in this country. What is often overlooked is the fact that the 1999 Act and various measures undertaken by the Government since then have sought to deal with such matters. In Glasgow, we constantly have to watch media coverage of people who have been refused asylum and who are subsequently evicted from their homes because they were provided under NASS. Because they are no longer officially asylum seekers—to all intents and purposes, they are regarded as illegal immigrants—they are no longer allowed to receive free accommodation from the state. Although it sounds somewhat hard-hearted, I agree that that is how it should be. It would be unacceptable for any Government to say that we should continue to fund and to pay benefits to people who not only have been refused asylum or have been unable to assert a legitimate claim to remain in the country but pointedly refuse to leave the country, deliberately say that they will not accept the decision and will remain in the country come hell or high water. In the past year, I have taken the step of saying to constituents who are asylum seekers that I shall be happy to represent them in discussions with the Minister or the IND, provided that they can assure me face to face, in all honesty, that, whatever decision is ultimately reached by the Minister or IND, they will respect it and co-operate with the authorities, whether it is to remain in the country or whether it instructs them to leave it. One of the reasons that I supported the measure when it was discussed during scrutiny of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill is that there is much unhappiness about the use of detention centres and the prospect of tagging people who have lost their claim for asylum, which is an important point to which the Minister referred. Unfortunately, we must consider such measures for practical reasons. As he said, if we can persuade people to co-operate with the authorities in being re-documented for their eventual return home, to agree to receive section 4 support under the 1999 Act and to undertake community work, we already have a system whereby we do not need to tag or to detain them because we know exactly where they are. We know what work they are doing. Under the system, if the time comes when the people can be removed safely to their country, we will know where to find them. We will know that they will be with
Let us consider the protection of people involved in the type of work that we are discussing. The hon. Member for Woking mentioned community orders imposed by courts. I would be concerned if the people about whom we are talking were put in a position where they may feel vulnerable to harassment or attacks by members of the community who may feel resentful of their presence. I am not saying that that would be a widespread problem, but the Government have a responsibility and a duty of care to those people to ensure that they do not suffer from such threatening behaviour. I asked the Minister in an intervention about the possibility of a pilot scheme in Scotland and whether he would be in contact with any organisations other than YMCA England. We are at an early stage, but I place on the record my willingness, and that of my colleagues who represent Glasgow constituencies—if we still represent them after the election, whenever that is—to co-operate with the Government in any way that we can to introduce such a scheme in an area of Glasgow. I hope that Castlemilk in my constituency will be considered as a location for one of those schemes, because it is needed at this point. Such a scheme will strike exactly the right balance between the responsibility of asylum seekers towards the community that has played host to them and the Government’s responsibility to ensure that they are protected, looked after and can return home safely to their own countries. 10.52 amMr. Clifton-Brown: May I add my condolences to you on leaving this place, Mr. Chidgey? Nevertheless, we are delighted to serve under your chairmanship. The Committee has demonstrated that these serious and difficult matters can be discussed in a reasonable and non-pejorative way. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) did the Committee a service by reminding us that, although we are talking about failed asylum seekers, this country owes them a duty of care while they are here and they should be treated reasonably. The regulations are welcome, because they begin to get failed asylum seekers, who will have to go back eventually, into a system where they can be monitored and where that process can be undertaken. What numbers are involved and will we know exactly how many failed asylum seekers there are in the country? When will all those people be in the sort of system about which I am talking? Will we get to a situation where we will never know how many failed asylum seekers there are in the country, and have at some point to introduce an amnesty, so that in future we can get every failed asylum seeker into that type of
I should like to press the Minister on the type of work involved and who decides whether it fulfils the regulations. He said that the work has to be of benefit to the individual or community. Would it be acceptable if a failed asylum seeker befriended an old lady and did her gardening or shopping in return for some cinema tickets, extra clothing, or other things? Who decides whether that is acceptable? If it is not acceptable, what is to be done about it? Who is to monitor all these people? The Minister says that there will be some form of immigration card; I was not quite up-to-date with the official phrase for that. It is to be monitored, I think, by the YMCA. If a person turns up at the YMCA and is not heard of again, will there be an arrest warrant for that person to find out where they have got to? What will happen if the monitoring system does not work? Will there be a requirement to report to the YMCA at regular intervals? Finally, what will be done about evasion and about those who simply disappear from the system? What methods will be used to try to find them and what sanctions will be applied when they are found? 10.55 amMr. Browne: I congratulate the hon. Members for Woking and for Cotswold and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart on their contributions. All the questions asked and contributions made were relevant and are entitled to an appropriate response. I cannot say that my experience of debate in the House has always revealed such consistent relevance in hon. Members’ contributions, whether short or long, so it is a pleasure to be a party to this debate. I accept the offer made by the hon. Member for Woking on behalf of all members, so if I cannot answer all the questions today, I shall write. Some of the questions posed require more detail than I can give, or than it would be appropriate to give, in the time available. One or two issues raised are of such importance that there should be a response now, and of course the most important of them is compatibility with the European convention on human rights. The hon. Member for Woking asked for an assurance that our policy and the regulations are compatible with the convention. I am confident that the scheme is not in breach of it. I know and understand the arguments, but it is not unjust, discriminatory or disproportionate to expect individuals receiving section 4 support to give something back. If that something is restricted to what is proportionate, then it is compatible with the convention. There is clear justification for expecting failed asylum seekers who look to the Government for support in their destitution, pending the removal of barriers to their return to their country, to give
The hon. Gentleman asked for more detail on those with whom we had consulted. In particular, he revisited an issue that he first spoke about when we discussed the subject in the House: whether we consulted the probation service. We did not consult it or the International Labour Organisation because our consultation was designed to help us identify the means for the practical delivery of the policy. We believe that we have achieved a framework that will give us practical delivery. The hon. Gentleman asked how open we can be about the responses to the consultation. We will be completely open. We have already sent a summary of the consultation responses to the key non-governmental organisations and other stakeholders. We gave those with whom we consulted a summary of what others said, and our view of what they said, and I will send a copy of it to all Committee members. Hon. Members rightly asked about numbers, which are important. I mentioned ambitions for section 4 support and the crucial role that it plays in doing what they encourage me to do: to keep in contact with failed asylum seekers; to get them to live up to the conditionality of co-operating with their return; and to get them to work with us to help remove the barriers to their return, to the extent that they are able, while we try to remove the other barriers to their return internationally, such as they are. The number of people we can expect to be on section 4 support with the conditionality of work—people who will be with us in the medium or longer term—is not likely to constitute the total number of people who are on section 4 support and will be in the hundreds. We have been working very hard on connecting with failed asylum seekers, particularly those from Iraq. At the end of February, about 5,000 were on section 4 support full stop. Such people are principally failed Iraqi Kurd asylum seekers, who can do nothing individually about the fact that there is no safe route of return. We must bear in mind that there are still voluntary returns, day on day, into Iraq, which are organised by the International Organisation for Migration. Such people are voluntarily prepared to risk the journey and that is entirely a matter for them, as is their motivation for doing so. No one would suggest that until we can be satisfied that there is an internationally recognised safe route back to the part of Iraq to which those people want to return, we should be responsible—in terms of our duty of care—for returning them. We have high hopes, for some of the reasons that I have shared with the Committee, that routes will open up in the comparatively near future. Discussions are going
As for the pilot project, I gave the number of 30 to 40 people, which represented our original intention. However, I now understand that 50 to 60 people will be included in the initial phase of the implementation. The hon. Gentleman asked for information about where that is likely to happen. Mr. Malins: And when. Mr. Browne: Let me first deal with what kind of activities will be involved. Based on our discussions with the YMCA, and the expressions of interest submitted by other organisations, we have identified a list of activities, which is not intended to be exhaustive. It includes working in day centres with homeless people or members of ethnic communities; assisting with supported housing projects; environmental work, which is a generic description with which we will all be familiar, knowing the sort of work that has been carried out in past schemes intended to occupy unemployed young people; cleaning; IT support work; research for voluntary and community organisations, depending on the skill level of the failed asylum seeker; assistance with seminars and workshops, again depending on the available skills; interpretation and translation; office and administration support; cooking and catering; mentoring and counselling; and manning telephone helplines. The list is intended to be descriptive and I think that hon. Members will appreciate that it is better that we do not have an exhaustive list in the regulations. However, within that general description, we keep flexibility. Ultimately, the Secretary of State will take the decisions, but that will be done in partnership with the YMCA and on the basis of advice from it. Decisions as to what is an appropriate form of activity for an individual will be made by the Secretary of State. However, such decisions will be based on the YMCA’s having interviewed the individual, identified their interests, linked them with an appropriate activity and ensured that the organisation at the location for the activity understands exactly what is involved. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart said that it is consistent with our duty of care to ensure the safety of the individual. That will also be taken into account when decisions are taken. Ultimately, breaches will also be for the Secretary of State to decide, but the YMCA and NASS will work closely with us to determine whether there has been a breach. I gave an undertaking when we debated this in the House that there would be a warning system. We promised that we would provide that, and there will be a warning system before support is withdrawn. In addition, all individuals will have a right of appeal to the asylum support adjudicator, as I have explained. The hon. Member for Woking asked when people would work more than 15 to 20 hours. They will do so only voluntarily. If an individual had an interest in an activity and wanted to expand the time for which he or she was involved in it, a cap of less than 35 hours would make a nonsense of that voluntarism. It would prevent
How much will all this cost? We will have to keep the cost-benefit analysis at the forefront of our minds. Our approach has been to develop a practical scheme that can be delivered on the ground. There will be significant benefits for community cohesion, not to mention the contribution that the voluntary work will make to those communities. The cost of the first phase of the scheme will be in the region of £60,000 for one year, but most of the costs are for the infrastructure necessary to deliver the scheme—for instance, staff and other resources. We think that, as numbers increase, the infrastructure will not need to be increased in the same way. How long people are on the scheme will vary depending on their circumstances. Our intention is to achieve the objective that all Committee members want us to achieve on failed asylum seekers, which is a level of co-operation that allows us to remove the barriers to removal and then allow people to return, either voluntarily or by force, to their country of origin. The scheme is subject to final discussions on location, but we hope to set it up as soon as possible. It will certainly be in the initial area within the next two to three months. We are still considering exactly where it should be based but, as the hon. Member for Woking astutely said, we should be able to give an indication of where that is likely to be. We will be in close contact with the relevant local authorities, which are important stakeholders, with agencies in the areas and with hon. Members who represent areas where the initial pilot phase will take place. Section 4 accommodation is available in about 20 towns and cities throughout the UK, including, I understand, Glasgow, but the areas with the majority of such accommodation are Manchester, London, Birmingham, Sheffield and Liverpool. Common sense dictates that the pilot scheme is likely to be in one of those areas. Column Number: 22 My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart mentioned duty of care. I have partly addressed that, but I can reassure him that we believe that it is important to liaise not only with local authorities, but with the police, if necessary, to identify any local concerns before we allow failed asylum seekers to be involved in voluntary work in any areas. We shall take forward such discussions in the initial phase. I am grateful for the offer of support that he and other hon. Members who represent the great city of Glasgow have given should we seek to expand into Glasgow at an early stage. I am sure that we shall be in touch on that. The only other issue to deal with is the one on which the hon. Member for Woking spent some time. It is helpful that he shared his knowledge of how the probation system works. He encouraged us at least to consider involving the probation system, but what we are talking about is not a punishment—probation is. It would send entirely the wrong message if we associated the two. We might well find ourselves in breach of the very human rights provisions that he wants us to identify. The idea is to identify a range of activities that will benefit the community. We need to consult and work with people who understand volunteering and who contribute to communities through the voluntary and community environment. We have identified who those people are, and we work closely with them. I do not want employment to be confused with punishment in this context. That would not be helpful to our objectives or to the longer term objectives that we have set for the scheme. Therefore, there is no need to involve the probation service or the National Offender Management Service—NOMS, as it is now known. This is a different type of scheme, but we have tapped into the expertise of volunteering groups and refugee groups to design the infrastructure for it. If I have not answered any questions, I will write to you, Mr. Chidgey, and all Committee members, and ensure that a copy of that letter is made available in the House. Question put and agreed to. Resolved,
Committee rose at eleven minutes past Eleven o’clock. |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2005 | Prepared 16 March 2005 |