Clause
17
Support
for failed
asylum-seekers
Amendment
proposed: No. 6, in clause 17, page 9,line 27, leave out
‘can bring’ and insert ‘has
brought’.—[Mr.
Blunt.]
The
Chairman:
With this we may discuss amendment No. 87, in
clause 17, page 9, line 36, leave out paragraph
(b).
5.15
pm
Damian
Green:
We have no objection to the clause in principle.
The aim is to clear up the problem of failed asylum seekers becoming
destitute while awaiting their appeal hearings, which is clearly a
sensible course of action. My amendment would allow those who have been
given permission to appeal out of time to be treated as an asylum
seeker, by leaving out paragraph (b). It seeks to add fairness and some
degree of justice to the system, because the clause seeks to exclude
from the definition of asylum seekers, and therefore from support,
those who have permission to appeal out of time.
I am sure that the Minister
will treat the amendment as a probing amendment, because I am puzzled
as to how it can be the case that the Government can give someone
permission to appeal out of time and yet say that, while they are
appealing, they are not seeking asylum. On the surface, that seems
contradictory; if there is some legal point that lies underneath the
surface, I would welcome clarification from the Minister. However, as
it stands the clause appears to be slightly contradictory. The state
has recognised that the process on the particular individual’s
decision is not completely over, although they are clearly, at this
stage, on the last knockings of the appeal process. However, as long as
they are recognised as being in the appeal process, it seems, on the
surface, to be straightforwardly unfair that they should not be
recognised as an asylum seeker. As I say, I wait with bated breath for
clarification from the Minister as to why that should be, but as it
stands the clause seems to be straightforwardly self-contradictory and
unfair.
Joan
Ryan:
I thank the hon. Gentleman for tabling his probing
amendment. It would perhaps be useful if I were to explain the
situation to the Committee for the purposes of clarity and
scrutiny.
The hon.
Gentleman knows that the clause seeks to maintain the status quo,
whereby we can make available asylum support for those individuals who
have had an initial decision refused and are awaiting their appeal.
Previously, that was always the case, but it has been called into
question in the courts and it is currently stayed in the House of Lords
while we are seeking to legislate in order to clarify the
position.
If we cannot
continue to pay asylum support during that period, we would have to
consider making available support under section 4 of the Immigration
and Asylum Act 1999, which is accommodation and a voucher method of
payment. It has never been our intention that we should move towards
that situation while someone is still in the process of an asylum
application. That support is aimed at those who have exhausted all
means of appeal in the asylum process, but are not able to be removed
at that point in time. Clearly, we would not wish for those individuals
to be destitute and therefore there is the provision of support under
section 4 of the 1999 Act. That support should not apply to people who
are between the point of initial application and appeal.
The reason that the amendment
is worded as it is, and also with reference to Government amendment No.
109—a technical amendment—is related to the fact that we
do not only provide support under
section 95 of the 1999 Act. It is also in relation to those who would be
covered by schedule 3 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act
2002, which does not only cover asylum applicants. Our problem, and the reason for
the wording, is that those who are refused at the initial decision have
a grace period within which to apply for appeal. That grace period is
10 working days, and if they put their appeal in within that period
there is not an issue. We wish to ensure that that applies also to
those covered by schedule 3. If it does not, there will be a gap in the
system for some who do not put in their appeal. Even if they make an
appeal immediately it will take some days to process, so there will
still be a gap during which they have no means of support. One can
imagine the cost to the system of people having to go through a process
of applying for section 4 support for a week before going back on
section 95 support. It would be expensive and chaotic and certainly
would not provide people with the support that they need on a timely
basis.
We need to
ensure not only that people apply within the 10 days and that we apply
the same 10-day period to schedule 3, under which there is no grace
period, but that those awaiting appeal can still be defined as asylum
seekers for the purpose of support and that both those receiving
section 95 support and those covered by schedule 3 have the grace
period of10 working days within which to make their
applications. If we were to extend that to out-of-time applications
beyond the 10 working days, there could be an indefinite period in
which we would be paying asylum support while somebody considered
whether to make an
application.
Damian
Green:
I am grateful to the Minister not just for giving
way but for her explanation of what is, she will agree, a tortuous
process. I am still concerned whether those who receive support under
one provision or another, or successively under more than one, might
fall down any cracks. They may feel that they are legitimately in the
system, even if they are not pushing it as she has just described, but
find themselves unable to receive support under any of the relevant
provisions. If there are people in that situation, are there likely to
be
many?
Joan
Ryan:
Our clear view is that the clause will cover the
situation and that we will not have the problem to which the hon.
Gentleman refers. In fact, the clause is about ensuring that such
cracks do not exist and that people have appropriate and adequate
support.
Government
amendment No. 109 would mean that at the end of the process, if an
appeal is upheld and it is found that a person should be given refugee
status, that person will have a 28-day period in which their asylum
support will continue to be paid while they move from the National
Asylum Support Service to the usual system and seek accommodation and
support by other means. Those whose appeals are not granted will have
21 days in which they will still receive asylum support before they
either should make arrangements to leave the country voluntarily or, in
some cases, qualify for section 4 support. The clause simply maintains
the status quo; it does not seek to achieve anything else. It covers
exactly the point that the hon. Gentleman made,
and ensures that there are no cracks through which people can fall. It
covers the situation for asylum seekers across the board between the
initial application, appeal and immediately following
appeal.
Damian
Green:
I am happy with the Minister’s explanation,
which I think I understand. If it turns out that the clause is
defective and there are cracks in the system I will receive letters on
the subject, and the Minister will receive even more than I do. We will
all know about it quite
quickly.
Mr.
Blunt:
On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for
Monmouth, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Amendment
made: No. 109, in clause 17, page 9, line 37, at end
insert—
‘(3A) For the
purposes of the provisions mentioned in subsection (1)(a) and (b), a
person’s status as an asylum-seeker by virtue of subsection
(2)(b) continues for a prescribed period after the appeal ceases to be
pending.
(3B) In subsection
(3A) “prescribed” means prescribed by regulations made by
the Secretary of State; and the
regulations—
(a) may
contain incidental or transitional
provision,
(b) may make
different provision for different classes of
case,
(c) shall be made by
statutory instrument, and
(d)
shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either
House of Parliament.’.—[Joan
Ryan.]
Question
proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the
Bill.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to
discuss new clause 15— Asylum
seekers—
‘(1) This
section applies for the purposes
of—
(a) Part VI (and
section 4) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) (support and
accommodation for
asylum-seekers),
(b) Part 2 of
the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (c. 41) (accommodation
centres), and
(c) Schedule 3 to
that Act (withholding and withdrawal of
support).
(2) In section 94(1)
of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) (Interpretation of Part
IV) and paragraph 17(1) of Schedule 3 to the Nationality, Immigration
and Asylum Act 2002 (c. 41) (Withholding and withdrawal of support),
for the definition of “asylum-seeker”
substitute—
“asylum-seeker”
means a
person—
(a)
who is at least 18 years
old;
(b)
who has made a claim for asylum at a place designated by the Secretary
of
State;
(c)
whose claim has been recorded by the Secretary of
State;
(d)
who remains in the United Kingdom following the making of a claim for
asylum;
and
(e)
who is subject to immigration control but does not currently have leave
to enter or
remain.”.
(3) The
following provisions are hereby
repealed—
(a) sections
4(2), (3) and (4) and 94(3), (4), (5), (6), (8) and (9) of the
Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c.
33);
(b) paragraphs 6, 7A and
17(2) and (3) of Schedule 3 to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum
Act 2002 (c. 41); and
(c) section 9 of the Asylum and Immigration
(Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 (c.
19).
(4) Omit paragraph 4(1)(e)
of the National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors)
(Amendments) Regulations 2004, No.
614.’.
Paul
Rowen:
My proposal deals with the issue of failed asylum
seekers, which the Minister touched on earlier. It is important to
understand that at present when someone has gone through all the
stages, section 95 support ceases, the National Asylum Support Service
sends them a letter, they are given notice to quit and then they are
effectively left destitute.
I would have no problem if the
IND were able to cope with the number of asylum seekers and made
provision for them to be removed from this country once their claims
had been dealt with. However, the written evidence from the Still Human
Still Here group shows that there are about 285,000 failed asylum
seekers still in this country who do not receive any support from the
Government, and if the present rate continues—we remove one
asylum seeker every26 minutes—it will take 14 years to
remove them.
We all
know of people whose asylum claim has failed, and many of them are
hugely tragic cases. There are people in my constituency from Somalia,
the Congo, Iraq, Iran and Zimbabwe whose asylum claim has not been
successful, for various reasons. Support is withdrawn and the
Government use destitution to try to deal with
them.
Mr.
Jackson:
I have some sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman
is saying; I, too, encounter such cases in my constituency. If I am
being cynical, I sometimes think that the decision to remove people
goes in political cycles. A year or so ago, a huge number of Iraqi
asylum seekers, some of whom had not even exhausted the appeals
procedure, were removed to the St. Ives holding centre in
Cambridgeshire and invited to choose their in-flight meal for the
journey back to Baghdad without recourse to the system. However, some
people have exhausted a very comprehensive legal system. Surely, the
hon. Gentleman realises that if they refuse to leave, having exhausted
the system at great cost to the Exchequer and to the taxpayer, they are
in fact undermining the validity of the system for more deserving
cases?
5.30
pm
Paul
Rowen:
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about the
extent to which people might have been involved in the system but, with
respect, that is part of the problem. As such people have been here for
so long, rather than ensure a speedy removal, the Government resort to
the quite inhuman tactic of trying to get people removed by forcing
them into destitution.
If such people were arrested by
an immigration officer and steps were taken to remove them speedily,
the argument might have some validity. In my surgery, I have told
people bluntly that they have exhausted the system and have no right to
remain in the country. That might well be upsetting and worrying for
those people, but unfortunately I am only one Member of Parliament and
cannot change the law for particular cases, so I have told them that
they should be removed.
That would be fine if they were speedily removed from the system when a
decision is taken. Generally, this country has
high international standards in how we treat people, and a reputation
for and record of sympathy to asylum seekers. I object because the
tactic—it must be nothing other than that—of using
destitution as a means to try and force people
back—
Chris
Mole (Ipswich) (Lab): I am following with some interest
the points that the hon. Gentleman is making, but given that a fair and
due process has been pursued, does he not accept that there is
ultimately an onus on the individuals to remove themselves as much as
on the state to discharge the functions that he
describes?
Paul
Rowen:
I accept some of what the hon. Gentleman says, and
people in my surgery have actually said that they must do that.
Equally, two wrongs do not make a right and the state has certain
duties and responsibilities in how we treat people. Resorting to
forcing people underground and having them sleep rough on the streets,
rely on charities, forage through bins or whatever to survive is not an
acceptable way to proceed in this day and age.
There are 283,500 asylum
seekers whose cases have all been lost with no right of appeal. Given
that fact and the IND’s current rate of removal, we need to be
doing something on that issue. I cannot believe that the proposed
approach would be possible, but it might be acceptable if the
Government were to start sorting those cases out right away. What is
not acceptable at the moment is using destitution as a technique. In
our fair, just and civilised society we should not be practising
it.
Kerry
McCarthy:
I want to make a few quick points. I accept the
argument that if people have exhausted all avenues of appeal, there is
perhaps a pull factor if life is made too comfortable for them here.
There have to be some measures that encourage them to return
voluntarily. The other day, I met the International Organisation for
Migration, which seems to be doing some good work in providing people
with resettlement packages in their home countries. I return to the
point that I made when we debated the previous clause, about people who
have exhausted all avenues of appeal but who come from countries such
as Somalia, to which it is difficult for them to return at the moment.
We are doing neither forced repatriations there nor voluntary ones,
which are also difficult.
I am concerned that the
Minister has made several references to people in such situations being
entitled to section 4 support, but there seems to be a very low take-up
of such support. In response to a question I asked recently, I was
told, I think, that the figure was 250 people in the entire south-west
region; it may have been 270. That includes not only Bristol, but
places such as Plymouth, Swindon and Gloucester, so the number must be
a tiny percentage of failed asylum seekers not receiving any support.
Why does the Minister think that take-up is so low and what does she
think is happening to people who are not getting section 4 support? The
answer must be that they have either gone underground and are relying
on the charity of friends or family, or have resorted to criminal
activity because they have no other alternative. What analysis has the Home
Office done of the idea that destitution encourages people to return
voluntarily? I have written to the Minister recently about the work of
the Hotham Mission in Australia, which has been taking the opposite
approach in assigning caseworkers to work with asylum seekers. Its
evidence seems to be that following such heavy intervention, more than
85 per cent. of all asylum seekers who have been refused places leave
the country voluntarily on the final decision. The Minister and I are
in correspondence about this matter at the moment, but the argument of
those involved would be that with such intervention—providing
some support and working with families—asylum seekers are much
more likely to return home than go underground and escape the system
altogether.
Finally,
where are we with the section 9 pilot schemes that have been running
and in providing support to children rather than families as a whole? I
understand that the Department is due to report on the outcome of those
pilots soon. It would be interesting to know when the results will be
published.
Damian
Green:
New clause 15 gives rise to a deep and important
debate on a clash of principles, each of which is entirely reasonable.
The first is that one should not use destitution as a tool of public
policy. All of us would clearly agree with that. The second is we
should not have a system that will create more demand for asylum at a
time when we know that the vast majority of asylum claims are not true
ones. Anything increasing that demand would itself have bad effects not
only in terms of the system clogging up again, but in encouraging evil
people such as human traffickers to try to use the asylum system. I
recognise the good intentions behind new clause 15, but it is a counsel
of despair, because it says that we need to change the law in response
to what is an administrative failure. That failure, as the hon. Member
for Rochdale rightly pointed out, is the sheer length of time it still
takes to get through the system.
In answer to one of the
previous debates, the Minister said the Government are doing better
than they used to do with the speed of getting applications through
from beginning to end. That may be true. In the aggregate, she will
know well that in certain individual cases it is definitely not so, in
some cases to an horrendous extent. I suspect that we have all
encountered in our constituencies people who have been waiting four,
five or six years and longer and who seem to have disappeared off the
radar as far as the Department is concerned.
Nevertheless, there are only
two big competing moral principles. One is to say that the process will
always be chaotic and that it will always take so long that people will
be forced into destitution, perhaps for long periods. Destitution in
this case normally means relying on the charity of good people and good
institutions around the country. I am sure we have all met such people.
I had a particularly eye-opening day in Leeds with some of the
organisations there. I met
some people who felt that they had been lost by the system and who
wanted work. Some of them, who came from Somalia—this was
recognised by the hon. Member for Bristol, East—said that they
could not go back home. They wanted to work but were not allowed to;
they could not receive benefits, so they were living off charity and
doing voluntary work. Clearly, that situation is
unsatisfactory, but the solution is not to pass laws accepting it as a
permanent feature. The solution is administrative, not legislative; it
means getting down the amount of time involved in getting from the
beginning of the process to the end, not just on average but for
everyone. I accept that that is not going to happen overnight. As the
situation has built up over time to be as catastrophic as it has been
in recent years, it will take the current Home Office Ministers some
time to make an impact, helped as they
are—fortuitously—by the worldwide and particularly
Europe-wide reduction in the number of potential refugees. We all know
that the peak came in the early years of this century, when the Balkans
were in such a terrible state. The end of that Balkans situation has
had many good effects, one of which is that far fewer people are
seeking asylum across borders inside western Europe.
Nevertheless, however bad the
situation is now—and it is bad—I do not think that new
clause 15 and the thinking that lies behind it are the solution. The
solution should be administrative, not legislative. For once during our
consideration of the Bill, I must part company with the hon. Member for
Rochdale.
John
Hemming:
The hon. Member for Bristol, East said that we
need to think again. She referred to evidence from Australia. We should
be looking for evidence on the most effective way of handling the
asylum process. If people are rejected and have been through all the
appeals processes, they clearly have no right to remain in the country
and should go. Is it best to say to them, “Disappear, we
don’t want to see you” or to keep some track of where
they are so that they can eventually be removed through an
administrative process? At the moment we have a process that says,
“Disappear: go and work in the twilight economy or whatever. Do
what you want. We want to pretend that you don’t exist.”
Then, with a bit of luck, some few years down the track, somebody from
the IND might find where a person is and try to get rid of them,
although they will probably just zap across to somewhere else in the
country.
We need to
start looking at evidence. The experience in Australia is that such an
approach is not the best way of achieving the outcome that we wish to
see: if somebody has no right to stay here, they are not here. From an
administrative point of view, the current approach does not work. The
issue raised by new clause 15 needs a little more attention than simply
saying “It won’t
work.”
Mr.
Jackson:
Like other hon. Members, I have a great deal of
sympathy with the sincerity of the views articulated by the hon.
Members for Rochdale and for Birmingham, Yardley. However, I think that
the issue is one of principle, which is why Conservative Members cannot
support the amendment.
Despite earlier comments such as
those of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere about the skills of
certain asylum seekers, as I have tried to explain throughout our
consideration of the Bill, the problem is simply that we do not have
enough reliable data and information on which to base a decision as to
whether to support such a proposal. I think that the principle is very
important. In the absence of hard evidence, rather than anecdote, we
cannot reward criminality, which is effectively what the new clause
would do. It would reward people who may well be seriously involved in
criminal activity such as drug dealing, people trafficking and so on.
There has to be a finality in the system. We pride ourselves on the
fact that we have a fair, transparent, robust and humane system that
people are obliged to go through when they seek asylum—when they
are in fear for their lives or in fear of
torture.
5.45
pm
We have all had
such cases. I had a case last year, where a man who was born a Muslim
and who had converted to Christianity was being returned to Pakistan.
That was a heart-rending decision for many people involved. I felt
desperately sorry for him. He had exhausted every avenue and, despite
the comments and support of the churches in my constituency, he went
back. I prayed that he was safe and able to continue in
safety.
These are
difficult decisions. However, by agreeing this amendment we would
entrench a hard core of people who have exhausted our system at great
cost to the
taxpayer.
John
Hemming:
I have a question of principle for the hon.
Gentleman. If he were shown, from the Australian experience, that such
a measure would make it easier for the IND to remove people who have no
right to be here, would he support new clause
15?
Mr.
Jackson:
The evidence given by the immigration lawyers a
couple of weeks ago, during a robust exchange, was that the way to
offset this problem was to deport people quickly. I am a fair person.
The Government have gone in the right direction, after the calamitous
situation in 2002 when we had hundreds of thousands of failed asylum
seekers, and they have reduced that number. However, as a point of
principle we cannot embed and entrench
criminality.
I have no
reason to dispute the views expressed by the hon. Member for Bristol,
East, although generally the Australian example is a tough one and
Australia probably has the toughest immigration laws in the world. I
should be interested to see the information that the hon. Member for
Birmingham, Yardley mentioned. However, at the moment I support the
Government’s resistance to the amendment. There has to be
finality in the system and if we do not accept and respect that, we
undermine the genuine people who are fleeing from persecution, terror
and threats to their life and liberty. No Committee member would want
to support
that.
Joan
Ryan:
If we agreed to new clause 15, it would replace
clause 17 with a different provision. The proposed new clause seeks to
end destitution for refused asylum seekers in the UK. I accept and
understand the motivation of the hon. Member for Rochdale in relation to
that. His proposal is supported by a range of refugee and other
organisations. It would also make changes to the health care
entitlements of unsuccessful asylum seekers. I shall try to deal with
the two matters separately, although I acknowledge that there are
strong links between
them.
I understand the
concerns about asylum support that gave rise to the new clause, as do
other Committee members. None of us wish to see people living in
destitution. However, the Government cannot support a proposal that
would maintain asylum support, potentially indefinitely, for those who
have made an asylum claim and had it and any appeal rejected and have
chosen not to return voluntarily. In such circumstances, the harsh fact
is that people who do not need our protection have chosen to be
destitute. Returning home is a clear alternative for
them.
Support under
section 4 of the 1999 Act is available for those who are taking all
reasonable steps to return home, while that return is being arranged.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East asked me about the figures
in relation to section 4. The last published figures show that more
than 6,500 failed asylum seekers are currently getting section 4
support. That is a not insignificant number. We inform all those whose
section 95 support is to be terminated of the availability of section 4
support, but they need to meet the criteria. Those who could make a
voluntary return will be supported only if they are taking all
reasonable steps to do so. The support is also available where there is
some temporary barrier to
return.
Those making a
voluntary return are also eligible to receive the world-leading
reintegration assistance that is provided by the International
Organisation for Migration on behalf of the Home Office. Our system of
asylum support is fair. It ensures that support is available to asylum
seekers who would otherwise be destitute from the moment when they
claim asylum in the UK until their claim is determined. It ensures that
those who appeal against an immigration decision flowing from the
refusal of their asylum claim within the clear statutory limits will
continue to be supported during the course of that appeal.
The level of support provided
includes adequate accommodation, where requested, and cash to meet
essential living needs. It would not be right for UK taxpayers to be
asked to fund on a potentially indefinite basis people who are choosing
not to return to a home country that has been found to be safe for them
to live in.
It might
be helpful if I were to give an idea of the sorts of sums that we are
talking about. The cost of supporting a single asylum seeker is
approximately £106 a week—that takes account of the fact
that not all of those who are destitute and seek support require our
accommodation—which equates to £5,500 a year. Supporting
even an extra 1,000 unsuccessful asylum seekers on that basis would
cost an additional£5.5 million per annum; the cost
would be an additional £55 million for every 10,000 or so people
supported.
That money
could be used to fund a variety of other important Government
initiatives. Instead, the new
clause proposes that we use that money to provide support to people who
have been unsuccessful in their asylum claim and who are unwilling to
make a voluntary return home. We have a long and proud tradition of
granting asylum and humanitarian protection to those who are fleeing
persecution and torture. Unquestionably the tradition must be
maintained, but the Government believe that, in doing so, it is also
our job to preserve the integrity of the asylum system. It is vital
that the system does not appear to be the subject of abuse. This is not
about meeting a target for the sake of it; it is about doing the right
thing, which is working towards the departure from the UK of those who
have no right to be
here. We are always
looking to improve our processes. That includes doubling our
enforcement and compliance resource and expanding our activity by
2009-10. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East said, we are in
correspondence about measures in Australia. We are, rightly, always
interested to learn about how things are managed in other countries and
about the success of such measures. We are also always willing to learn
from them.
Our new asylum arrangements for
total case ownership will mean that one named officer will be
responsible for the case from the point of claim through to the point
of integration or removal. The case owner will be responsible for all
aspects of the claim— asylum decision, support, appeal and
removal. That does not mean that it would simply be appropriate to
provide ongoing asylum support in all cases until removal is achieved.
We have clear targets for the case owners dealing with asylum claims
that focus on the conclusion of the case, rather than simply on making
a decision or on getting a case through the appeals process. Those
measures touch on the administrative measures that the hon. Member for
Ashford has talked about and demonstrate why we have achieved
considerable improvements in the system. Our commitment is to grant
asylum to or remove 90 per cent. of new asylum seekers within six
months by the end of 2011, having ramped up performance in the
preceding years.
That
is all part of our work to preserve the integrity of the asylum system.
The new clause would certainly not help us to achieve that aim.
Furthermore, it might have a damaging effect, given that it would
provide a significant pull factor for asylum seekers who come from
beyond the European Union and those who enter it illegally and work
their way up to the northern states. If a person could make an asylum
claim and be supported indefinitely on the basis that they managed to
enter this country, that could have a significant impact beyond our
borders. We could not contemplate supporting
that.
Paul
Rowen:
I have been carefully following the
Minister’s argument. I thank her for giving way, but cannot let
her remark about indefinite support go by. We are clear that it would
be support until the person was removed. In our view, the issue is
about dealing with the administrative stuff as well as the other
issues, not about indefinite support. That is an important
principle.
Joan
Ryan:
I accept that the hon. Gentleman does not view the
process as never ending. However, support
until removal would make a significant change to asylum policy, would
have a significant financial impact and would still be a significant
pull factor, as point of removal is not determined. The difficulty that
I have outlined certainly still
applies.
We
have talked about some of the solutions—the administrative
solutions and the strengthening of our borders. Another key point to
bear in mind is how we work in the European Union with our partners;
that is also helping us to reduce the number of illegal entrants and,
therefore, asylum seekers.
I do not think that it is
simply a matter of there being less pressure; circumstances around the
world change, but colleagues from Spain and Italy talk about the
pressure and illegal immigration problems that they are experiencing on
the southern maritime border. We are working with them in Frontex, the
European Union border agency, to try to deal with such asylum
seeking—not least because large numbers of people at sea in
boats are at terrible risk, and some lose their lives. That kind of
co-operation is also extremely
important.
Across
the piece, we have taken clear and determined action to deal with
illegal entry and the level of unfounded asylum seeker application. The
hon. Member for Rochdale will know that applications are at their
lowest level since the early to mid-1990s. Those measures are having an
impact and are the ones that we need to pursue to continue to deal with
the situation.
I turn
to health care, which is an important part of the hon.
Gentleman’s new clause. The new clause would change the current
entitlement to health care for those who have been unsuccessful in
their asylum claims. As announced in our recently published enforcement
strategy, we intend to shut down inappropriate access to
services—those that are privileges intended for those in the UK
legitimately. At its simplest, that is an issue of
fairness.
6
pm
On
health care, we will review the rules governing access to the national
health service for foreign nationals. We will work with the NHS to
ensure that the implementation of the new rules flowing from the review
is accompanied by a programme of communication and good
practice.
Mr.
Jackson:
On a very specific point, I wonder how the
Minister will collect that information. On several occasions, I have
tabled parliamentary question to the Department of Health and other
Departments about access by foreign nationals to health services, but I
have been told that that information is not collected centrally. How
will the Home Office collect that
information?
Joan
Ryan:
We will work with the NHS to ensure that the
implementation of the new rules flowing from the review is accompanied
by a programme of communication and good practice for those who apply
the rules, including practice staff, general practitioners and trusts.
Clearly, working closely with primary care and hospital trusts will be
important. However, despite difficulties, it is important that we
tackle that issue.
Given the review, I
say to the hon. Member for Rochdale that it would be inappropriate to
make changes at the moment. The basic humanitarian needs of failed
asylum seekers for health care are met already. They receive free
treatment in accident and emergency departments and for many infectious
diseases such as tuberculosis. For other life-threatening conditions,
and in order to prevent any conditions from becoming life-threatening,
they will receive appropriate treatment regardless of their ability to
pay. Treatment will not be withheld or delayed. Charging issues will be
sorted out subsequently, and trusts have the discretion to write off
debts if it would not be reasonable or cost-effective to pursue
them.
In
conclusion, although I understand the motivation behind the hon.
Gentleman’s new clause, we cannot agree to the measure for
supporting failed asylum seekers. It would be a dangerous measure that
would drive a coach and horses through our policy and desire to deal
with the issue using other means that are showing results and must be
pursued. As I said, I think that we should await the outcome of the
review.
Paul
Rowen:
I listened very carefully to the Minister and in
particular to her last point about the provision of health care.
Nevertheless, we believe that a clear principle is at stake here. The
remarks of the hon. Member for Bristol, East are pertinent to the
argument. Failed asylum seekers might face a choice between
homelessness and destitution, and going back home to face uncertain
circumstances that might be life-threatening. In my experience, getting
them to agree to go home voluntarily is difficult. I dealt with a case
last year in which we persuaded someone to go back to south
America—not directly, but via another country, because they were
concerned about arriving at the main airport and then being arrested by
the police of that country. Through support from the organisations that
the Minister mentioned, we managed to get an agreement for the family
to return by a circuitous route. That illustrates the point that the
hon. Member for Bristol, East, made: one can enable that outcome if one
gives appropriate support.
The new
clause makes it clear that we are not seeking an open-ended commitment;
we want support to be provided until removal. That allows time for the
administrative process to sort out the matter. At the moment, there is
no incentive for the IND to sort out the process for the huge numbers
that will remain in the country, even under the new policy. New
proposals are needed, along the lines described by the hon. Member for
Bristol, East, to provide that support. I am pleased that more people
are using the process, but 5,500 or 5,600 is a small proportion of
failed asylum seekers. On that note, I give notice that at the
appropriate time, we will want to press an amendment regarding the new
clause.
The
Chairman:
I should advise the hon. Gentleman that if the
Committee agrees that clause 17 should stand part of the Bill, I cannot
allow a separate Division on proposed new clause 15, because clause 17
and proposed new clause 15 are alternatives. If one stands, the other
falls; if he wishes to vote, he can vote on clause 17 stand
part.
Question put,
That
the clause, as amended, stand part of the
Bill:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes
2.
Division
No.
9
]
Question
accordingly agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended,
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
