| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Greaves: I do not understand at all. If the Government are bringing in a new policy designed for certain objectives, they ought to have an assessment of what the effect of that policy will be in relation to those objectives. If they do not, they will be floundering.
Why should the provision of support of any kind be automatically tied to the Government's desire to keep more control over where people live while they are claiming asylum? Does not the fact that people can opt out of support and live where they want nullify the objective of doing so? If it is to be made a condition of seeking asylum that people live in a certain place, surely that can be made a condition regardless of whether people are receiving support?
Lord Filkin: I agree with the noble Lord. Were the Government on the point of implementing such a power, one would expect a careful assessment of its implementation process, costs, timetable and burden. In that respect, the noble Lord is right. I perhaps should have prefaced my remarks by saying that we have no plans to introduce this measure in the near future. I have no knowledge of any proposal for implementation in the autumn, and no timetable has been drawn up to that effect. I can therefore give a clear assurance in that regard.
With regard to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, about the importance of maintaining contact, in essence, the state provides, as I believe it should, substantial support in aggregate, if not on an individual basis, to asylum seekers who are destitute. The current cost of that provision is approximately £1 billion per year. That does not mean that needs are not being met from that cost, but it is a substantial sum. The Government's view is that if people wish to be supported, it is perfectly reasonable that the Government should be entitled to know where
people are and to exercise some discretion about the form in which such assistance will be offered. I do not wish to prolong the debate. Broadly, that is the Government's position on that matter.
Earl Russell: The Minister has not yet taken on board the force of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, about the dependence of refugees on members of their own community. That removes a great deal of the burden from many of the institutions of state, notably, social services. The budgets of social services departments are not in a particularly comfortable state. I am sure that the Minister will have heard some of the recent complaints about care homes; it is a constant refrain.
By depriving refugees of the support of their own communities, the Minister is pickling a rod for his own back. He may consider the case of the Somali who was sent to Brighton, where not a single person spoke his language. That created a very considerable burden. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, looks surprised. It is an NACAB story, and it is in the habit of getting such matters right.
I also believe that the Minister should not blame the burdens on the South East, which I agree have been considerable, simply on the fact of people being allowed to live where they like. That was the result of two consecutive matters: first, the withdrawal of benefits by the 1996 Act; secondly, shortly afterwards, the judgment of Mr Justice Collins that asylum seekers were entitled to support under the provisions of the National Assistance Act 1948. That placed a burden on local authorities, which admittedly was a great deal too heavy for them, and they had a legitimate grievance. However, their grievance was not the presence of the asylum seekers but the Government's failure to shoulder a burden that should have been their own.
Lord Hylton: In his reply, the Minister mentioned some 30,000 people whom he felt may be attempting to evade the forthcoming managed system. We agree that the way to prevent such evasion is to have a comprehensive network of reporting centres and to make use of the recently introduced application registration card, rather than to take away cash-only support from that category of people.
Lord Filkin: I do not want needlessly to prolong the debate at this time of day, particularly as the Government have no immediate plans for implementation under this clause. I certainly did not intend to suggest that there were in London 30,000 people seeking to avoid their reporting obligations. I was merely marking the reality of the situation that the concentration of very large numbers of support-only asylum seekers in London creates challenges and burdens for local government and for society in some of those areas.
However, be that as it may, there is no immediate plan to implement this proposal. I am certain that the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and other noble Lords about the cost effectiveness of
moving towards implementation of this, as well as the other humanitarian points that have been raised, will be considered by the Government before we decide to move forward on implementation.Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
10.30 p.m.
Clause 38 [Destitute asylum-seeker]:
Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 140A:
- Page 20, line 21, leave out from second "the" to ", or" in line 22 and insert "claimant receives notice of the Secretary of State's decision"
The noble Earl said: I shall move this amendment, but I shall not move Amendments Nos. 141 and 141B which are grouped with it. Amendment No. 140A would make provision for the termination of support to run from when the asylum seeker is notified of the failure of his claim—that is, when he receives the notification—not from when the Secretary of State is thought to have despatched it. It is all too common now for people whose claims have been refused to discover the fact not through a letter from Lunar House, still less from the Secretary of State; but from a letter from NASS saying, "Since the rejection of your claim, your support has been terminated". So they bother to let NASS know but they do not bother to inform the claimant. That is not the way that it ought to be. It creates a shock, a sudden collapse of support, which can be very serious in its consequences.
I have referred the Minister previously to Alasdair Mackenzie. He quotes one case of a Home Office letter of refusal that reached the applicant 10½ months after the date on its letter-head. That is the sort of example that makes me suggest that the clock should run from the time of the applicant's receipt of the letter and not from the date that appears on the top of the letter. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I can understand why the noble Earl has moved the amendment. It would certainly be unfair to stop supporting an asylum seeker whose claim had been determined in circumstances where, through no fault of his own, he was unaware that a decision on his claim had been reached.
The purpose of Section 94(3) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which this clause seeks to amend, is to ensure that asylum seekers whose claims have been determined are given a period of grace to make other arrangements for support when their entitlement to support under Part VI of that Act ends.
As we understand it, the noble Earl's proposed amendment seems to be aimed at ensuring that the start of the so-called "grace period", during which an asylum seeker can still receive support under Section 95 of the 1999 Act once he has received a decision by the Secretary of State on his asylum claim, begins when he actually receives the decision notice—I believe that that understanding is shared—not when it is sent out by the Secretary of State. However, that is already the intention and effect of Section 94(3).
We do not argue that the posting of a decision notice constitutes notification; nor are we clear what is wrong with the present arrangements. Service of a decision notice is either carried out in person or by post using the Recorded Delivery mail where a person is required to sign for the letter received. I should have thought that that was entirely adequate in all the circumstances.
I do not see how we can go any further; otherwise, it would mean us serving around 100,000 notices personally each year. Of course, the reputation of the Home Office in this field is legendary. But even that might just be a touch beyond us. The resource implications are frightening. If the noble Earl pauses to think about it, and takes in exactly what I have said in my response, I am sure that he will find it within himself to agree that this is an effective, pragmatic and fair way to deal with such matters. I hope, therefore, that he will withdraw amendment. I should add that I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving notice of the fact that he does not intend to move the other two amendments in this group; namely, Amendments Nos. 141A and 141B.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I am very glad to hear of the humane and sensible practice that the Minister described as being in operation. What occurs to me, however, is that if that system is in operation, what do the Government have to lose by accepting the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Russell? I may have missed the point, but the noble Earl seems to be advancing an argument that really makes itself. If there is to be a deleterious consequence flowing from late reaction to a determination, that consequence should at least flow from the date of notification rather than the date of posting of the notification.
Earl Russell: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, for his support. I reassure the Minister that I was not intending to press the amendment at this time of night. However, I might perhaps draw his attention to Section 94(3) of the 1999 Act to which he refers. It states:
- "For the purposes of this part, a claim for asylum is determined at the end of such period beginning . . . on the day on which the Secretary of State notifies the claimant of his decision of the claim".
Whatever ought to happen, it is clear that the system is not working at the moment. Perhaps the Minister can familiarise himself with the correspondence that I have been having in the past few weeks with his predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and with the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, about malfunctions in the issue of the form NASS 35, which is the NASS sign-off to say how much benefit the applicant has had from NASS which is used by Social Security as a means of triggering the claim. It does not start to pay until it has the NASS 35. This form very often fails to get issued. If the Minister wants further examples of that, I am sure that Mr John Wheatley of
the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux will be very happy to supply it to him in considerable detail.
So before I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, may I just ask the Minister not to assume that everything is all right as it is now?
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page