| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I think that we all appreciate that we do not live in a world of absolute perfection. However, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, gave helpful support to the noble Earl, I should like to try to put this point on the record so that it is understood. The status quo is precisely what the noble Earl is seeking to achieve; there is no difference. In our view, the amendment is entirely unnecessary. A person is "notified" when he or she receives the notification. That is what the words mean. So it is the moment that the notification is received that they are "notified", not when the notification is posted, which is the point on which the noble Earl relied in his argument, in which he was supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden. I hope that that clarification, on the record, will enable the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment with considerable satisfaction. It has enabled us to spell out precisely what is meant by the law.
Earl Russell: The Minister describes utopia very well. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 141:
- Page 20, line 24, leave out "finally determined" and insert "disposed of"
The noble Lord said: This technical amendment corrects a drafting error. Section 94(4) of the 1999 Act contains the definition of when an appeal is considered to have been "disposed of". The amendment will ensure that this very worthwhile and wholly sensible definition applies. In the new Section 94(3) inserted by Clause 38(4), there was an error in that we were referring to "finally determined". We have taken great pains to ensure that this amendment wholly corrects that error and puts it right. I beg to move.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: If it is not asking too much of the Minister, will he explain what is the difference between "finally determined" and "disposed of"?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am a history graduate, not an English graduate. However, as I hear the words, I suppose that they mean pretty much the same thing. It is our intention to ensure clarity. We consider that the term "disposed of" is more correct. I have no doubt that if the noble Lord refers to Fowler's Modern English Usage, he will find that that is the case.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I am grateful for that attempt at an explanation. During the previous Parliament I wrote to the Home Office 40 times more
often than I had done before due to the reluctance of the Home Office to communicate with my constituents. I remember case after case where the final determination of an appeal never reached the constituent. I can also think of cases where, although the appeal had been disposed of, the Home Office was blissfully ignorant of that. In neither case did it appear to me that the word "finality" had any rationale in terms of the course of events.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I hope that I may in 30 seconds suggest an answer which the Minister might give. Let us suppose that an appeal is withdrawn. It is finally disposed of but it is not determined as it has not been the subject of adjudication. Might that possibly be the answer?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: That seems most sensible. I am always in the hands of lawyers in your Lordships' House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 141A and 141B not moved.]
Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 39 [Section 38: supplemental]:
Baroness Greengross moved Amendment No. 141C:
- Page 21, line 34, at end insert—
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 141C is a probing amendment to test the principle on which the Government have decided on the level of support for older asylum seekers. Perhaps it is an oversight or I have misunderstood the Bill's provisions, but older asylum seekers appear to be treated in the same way as younger people.
I apologise to the Committee for not having been able to take part in the Bill's Second Reading as fully as I would have liked. I am, however, a member of Sub-Committee F of the European Union Select Committee which is currently considering these very issues as part of its ongoing inquiry into a common EU policy on illegal immigration.
Put simply, my amendment would give extra financial support to older asylum seekers, which the Refugee Council and Oxfam recommend in their recently published excellent report on poverty and asylum. It provides a sad picture of the poverty suffered by many older asylum seekers at a level not experienced by older UK residents who benefit over and above income support.
The logic for this is taken from the Government's rules on support for our own citizens. As the Committee will know, our own older people now receive a much more generous level of support than people aged under 60. They always received a premium on supplementary benefit and income support. Now the premium on the normal income support level of £53.95 per week has risen to £44.20 per week, making
That higher level of support is partly to reflect the extra needs of and costs for our older people. Other Members of the Committee have mentioned the need for clothes in cold weather, for example. Does the Minister think that older asylum seekers do not have those extra needs?
My amendment does not in fact suggest that older asylum seekers should get the same pensioner premium as our own citizens: £44.20 per week. Rather, I suggest that they should get the same proportion extra—it is almost double—as our own citizens receive. That would mean that older asylum seekers would receive an additional £30 or so on top of the flat rate weekly amount of £37.77 which asylum seekers will receive.
In 2001, around 700 asylum seekers aged over 60 sought asylum in this country. We are not talking about great numbers. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, we on these Benches warmly support the amendment. I shall make two points in support of it. First, many asylum seekers concerned come from communities that have a much stronger tradition of family support for the old than we have in this country. For those people, being dispersed away from those communities will be a correspondingly greater wrench than it would be for many British people in the same situation. Secondly, the Minister argued earlier this evening that the package of support available for asylum seekers is broadly equivalent to income support. If the amendment is not agreed to, that argument of the Minister's must be untenable.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The Government certainly understand the concerns put forward by the noble Baroness, who has a long record of work in arguing cases such as this. Of course, I would also
It is worth reminding the Committee that the NASS dispersal scheme was set up to be separate from the main benefits system. It is important that that distinction is maintained. Support provided to those with asylum seeker status is different and separate from that provided to other residents. It is not intended exactly to replicate the social security system but to provide a means of short-term support aimed at providing, as necessary, a roof over the heads of destitute asylum seekers and the basic wherewithal to meet their essential living needs. Accordingly, the Government cannot accept that supplementary payments are necessary for asylum seekers who are over 60 years old.
We understand the argument but we do not believe that it is an acceptable approach. We have set out our rationale for the current scheme. It has been argued in this Chamber this evening and explained with great clarity. While we understand the points made, I am afraid that we do not find the amendment acceptable. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw it.
Baroness Greengross: I thank the Minister for that reply but I am obviously disappointed. I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his support. I hope that perhaps at a later stage the Government will reconsider the matter. It is important that the needs of older asylum seekers are considered very carefully. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
"( ) The following shall be inserted into section 97(4) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (support–supplemental)—
"(c) must provide an asylum seeker who is over the age of 60 with regular additional cash payments equivalent in proportion to the pensioner premiums provided to other pensioners in the United Kingdom.""
10.45 p.m.
House adjourned at ten minutes before eleven o'clock.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page