| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Earl Russell: Will the Minister say why he thinks that legal representation in an appeal is not necessary?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am talking about the specific circumstances relating to withdrawal of support. I am happy to tell the Committee why Amendment No. 144 is unnecessary. Section 96(1)(c) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 may allow us to meet the expenses of witnesses who attend an asylum appeal in respect of a supported asylum seeker. Section 103(9) of the same Act, which is reproduced in the new Section 103B inserted by Clause 41 of the Bill, may allow the expenses of a witness attending an asylum support hearing to be paid, and Section 96(2) allows for forms of support other than those specified by Section 96(1) to be provided in exceptional circumstances.
Amendment No. 144 is an attempt to require travel expenses of witnesses to be paid in every case. Current legislation is permissive, but it is normal policy to meet the travel expenses of witnesses, so I hope that Members of the Committee will agree that making payment mandatory is not necessary. There may be circumstances in which it would be ridiculous to pay travelling expenses—for example when a witness is more than able to afford the costs of travel. NASS currently operates under instructions to that effect.
Amendment No. 143A would affect the current legislation that the Secretary of State may pay any reasonable travelling expenses to enable an appellant to attend an appeal hearing in connection with a decision to refuse or terminate support. I am happy to reassure the Committee that, as a general rule, reasonable travel expenses of appellants will be met from public funds. But again it would be nonsensical to insist on that in every case. Support may be terminated early because the person has failed to abide by the terms in which that support was offered. The person may have been working without telling the authorities and claiming support at the same time. We have to be able to take account of those circumstances. People have undoubtedly defrauded the public purse and many will be well able to meet the costs of their own travel.
We must ensure that public money used for supporting asylum seekers is spent to best effect. Paying travel expenses in every case, even for those who can afford the costs of their own travel, would not represent best value for money. It would be entirely inappropriate to meet the costs of travel in such cases. For that reason the amendment should be withdrawn as the points that it covers have already been met by and large.
Lord Hylton: The Minister cited Clause 97 of the Bill which does indeed deal with grants. However, they are
limited to persons who have a right of appeal. Therefore, the clause does not go wide enough to cover legal advice before a first decision has been made. Will the Minister consider having a dialogue with the Legal Services Commission so that legal advice will be readily available to those who need it at the earliest possible stage? That would lead to much better quality first decisions.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am happy to consider that point. The noble Lord is right about what Clause 96 covers. The Secretary of State can make grants to voluntary organisations that provide advice or assistance to people with a right of appeal under Part 5 of the Bill. The circumstances to which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred are limited to that element of the legislation. I shall consider that point, but we are probably right in constraining the area which it covers.
Earl Russell: I thank the Minister for his reply. He has convinced me that he may do what I ask, and I very much hope that he will. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 144 and 145 not moved.]
Clause 48 [Withholding and withdrawal of support]:
On Question, Whether Clause 48 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Greaves: This is an extremely important clause, although it is short. It refers to Schedule 3 which is a long, complex and important schedule setting out entirely new legislation for the withholding and withdrawal of support. It refers to four categories of people: failed asylum seekers; people living here illegally; European Union and EEA citizens; and those who have been granted refugee status in another EU state.
These new proposals were introduced at the last minute in another place. They received what can only be described as a cursory discussion on Report, together with a large number of other amendments. They certainly did not receive proper scrutiny. If they are to receive proper scrutiny, this is the only time and place that it will happen. Therefore, I hope that Members of the Committee will bear with me.
The Government's reason for bringing forward the amendment was clearly to deal with what is commonly called "benefit shopping". People in various categories, particularly refugees and former refugees who have gained citizenship in another part of Europe, come to this country and are not economically active; not having lived here for any length of time, they are unable to claim habitual residence. Because they are not able to claim national benefits, they fall back on claiming what might be termed local benefits: essentially benefits from social services departments as set out in paragraph 1 of the schedule. So there is clearly a problem in some places. It was reported to me that in Birmingham, for example, this has cost the
social services department £3 million—a not inconsiderable sum. It is a problem that must be examined and sorted out.The difficulty is this. By bringing forward this legislation at the last minute in the other place, in what seems to be a fairly rushed and not very considered way, the Government are not merely tackling the problem of a relatively small number of people—for some reason most appear to be Somalis, but the provision no doubt applies to others—they are introducing legislation which appears to have a far more wide-ranging effect and which applies to all citizens of the EU and the EEA.
I do not understand European law in this area, or indeed in any other area, and I doubt whether many other people do. It is extremely complex. The amendment itself is a complex attempt to amend an extremely complex area of law on a one-off basis, in a Bill which otherwise has nothing to do with European legislation and rules, and which may well extend into areas beyond the competence—I use the word in a colloquial way—of those who are dealing with these matters.
It is suggested by some that this proposed piece of legislation may well break European rules—that it may be contrary to European law. I do not know whether that is the case, but there are enough people who appear to know what they are talking about who are putting that forward to cause concern.
It seems to us that any solution to the problem requires a European-wide agreement. Not to seek such agreement risks breaking a fundamental principle of equality of treatment for all EEA citizens. EEA citizens who come to this country and are able to work are all right. If they live here long enough, they may well meet the habitual residence test if in the future they are in need of assistance, for example, in regard to a disability or whatever it may be. But those who are not able to work here are being potentially discriminated against.
The proposal is to remove a raft of possible benefits from four different categories. It seems to me that no one can argue against the removal of benefits from failed asylum seekers. If their claim had failed, they are not entitled to support beyond that which may be necessary on humanitarian grounds and perhaps to look after any children.
However, the proposal gives rise to various concerns. There are at present an unknown number of people in this country who are in receipt of welfare support, housing support, and social services support of other kinds from local authorities. I do not know whether the Minister can give the government estimate of the numbers involved. I have not seen the figure, but it is clearly a reasonably large minority in a few places, and not many in the rest of the country.
These are potentially families who rely on the benefits that they receive. It may involve older people and children. One of the concerns is: what happens to these people? If the legislation is passed, will their benefit simply be cut off; and what would the consequences be? If the Government intend in the
future to provide support only for children, does that mean that those children will be taken into care and that families will be split up? What are the alternatives?A further concern is that this provision could prevent families being reunited if there are family members with refugee status in different countries. If a husband has refugee status in France, for example, and the wife and children have refugee status here, on the face of it this schedule would prevent the husband coming to this country and being reunited with his children. Is that sensible? Should not this issue be dealt with at European level, so that refugee status can be transferred by agreement from one country to another?
Paragraph 14 of the schedule places on local authorities a duty to provide information if they come across people whom they believe to be failed asylum seekers or who are otherwise not entitled to be living here—who are settled here unlawfully. It places on the local authority a duty to notify the central authorities of that fact.
The wording of paragraph 14 is rather strange and the provision is unclear. It does not state quite so boldly that there is a general duty on local authorities. It suggests that the duty is in relation to their other duties as regards people's eligibility for social services support. The question arises: is this to be regarded in future as a general duty on local authorities? If they come across someone who is not entitled to be living here, is it their duty in all cases to notify the Government, or only where an application is being made for support and the applicants are found to be ineligible under the terms of the schedule?
If it is a general duty, it will place many local authorities in great difficulty. Anyone involved with refugees and asylum seekers hears many stories. Sometimes you deliberately close your ears to them. You get to know that such and such a person has failed in his or her asylum claim after going through all the appeal processes, and is said to be living in such and such a place with such and such a person. You close your eyes to that. If you are working with asylum and refugee groups and you go around "shopping" people, you immediately lose credibility. You cannot do that. That is the case with some local authority employees who are employed specifically to work with such groups. If it is to be their duty to "shop" people whenever they come across rumours or even strong evidence that people are living in this country when they should not be, it will make their job impossible. It will cut local authorities off from the very useful contacts that they have with local asylum and refugee groups. The point needs clarification.
Amendment No. 158A in this group refers to paragraph 15 of Schedule 3, which allows the Secretary of State to invent a new class of person for this purpose. As I understand it, this is over and above the four existing classes—failed asylum seekers, EEA citizens and so on. A new class of person can be invented and can simply be added to the list by order. This seems an extraordinary provision—the ability to
remove people's rights and to create new "non-persons" simply by order. I wonder whether the Minister can justify this provision.Will the Minister define a failed asylum seeker? Is it someone who has been turned down at the first stage; or has someone to go through the whole process before the provisions can be brought in? Will the Minister tell us what reliance on a right under or by virtue of Community treaties means? I do not understand it. I can find no one who can explain it to me in words of one syllable. Perhaps the Minister can do so. Such a provision could drive a coach and horses through the schedule; or it may clarify it.
How many people are getting this support from local authorities at present? By what process will they lose support? In other words, what transitional period will there be for people in that position at present or will they simply be thrown out on the street without further ado? What is the relationship of the habitual residence test to the proposed new legislation? It was discussed, although not clarified, in another place.
It is an extremely important schedule which deserves considerable discussion and understanding before the Committee allows it to go through.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page