| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Renton: Schedule 3 is four-and-a-half pages long. It is rather complicated and its legal effect is, in several places, somewhat obscure. I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Greaves—he has taken a lot of trouble in putting forward his views on the schedule—that we can do without it.
Perhaps I may run quickly through some of the provisions. Paragraph 1 relates to ineligibility for support. That merely ensures that existing law of various kinds must not be ignored. We could not do without that. I have slight doubts about the exceptions which are put forward but they do not go too far and I think that that provision is all right.
The four classes of ineligible persons are set out in paragraphs 4 to 7. I think that those are wise provisions which we must have. Paragraph 8 provides that,
- "The Secretary of State may make regulations providing for arrangements to be made enabling a person to whom paragraph 1 applies . . . to leave the United Kingdom".
The offences follow naturally if there are breaches. It is only right that the schedule should be supported by the power to prosecute if necessary although, frankly, the circumstances in which prosecutions are likely to take place would, I think, turn out to be rather narrow. Paragraph 14 relates to information and is fair enough.
I now invite the Committee's attention to paragraph 15 which relates to power to amend the schedule. That is what we call a Henry VIII clause giving the Secretary of State power to amend primary legislation made by Parliament. We should try to avoid that wherever
possible. Bearing in mind the trouble which has been taken with regard to the other parts of Schedule 3, I doubt whether that Henry VIII clause is necessary or desirable. Paragraph 16 relates to the making of regulations. We then have a paragraph relating to interpretation which is clear enough.Although I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and his noble friends that Schedule 3 should be struck from the Bill, the Government should consider the making of the Henry VIII clause. I support the Government on the remainder of the schedule.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, probably rightly says that the House of Commons did not look hard at the schedule; it came in at the last moment. I accept that. He asked what a failed asylum seeker is. I should have thought we knew that by now: an asylum seeker who has failed the test and failed on appeal. I may be wrong, but the noble Lord asked the question and that seemed to be the answer. The Government will or will not confirm my opinion.
The noble Lord also asked what happens if someone has to leave. Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the schedule provide that the Secretary of State may make regulations to enable that person to leave. That is clearly important. Although we want asylum seekers who deserve to stay to do so, we want the whole matter dealt with quickly. We do not want people staying after they have been refused, so the Secretary of State may by regulations provide for them to go. If a person has a dependent child, under paragraph 9 he can obtain accommodation before that arrangement is made.
I considered the schedule and the Explanatory Notes with some care. I thought that I understood the schedule and that it was fairly satisfactory. I listened carefully to the noble Lord. He may have unearthed something that will worry me although I am not sure that he did. I do not know whether it is my job to encourage the Government in this way, but on those questions I had thought that I understood the schedule.
I am not sure whether the measure to which my noble friend Lord Renton objects is a Henry VIII clause. It enables the Secretary of State to alter the list of people to whom the provision applies and the list of legislation that does not apply. I thought that that was a safety net. Again, I should like to hear what the Government have to say.
Lord Dholakia: I support the concern expressed by my noble friend Lord Greaves, and the noble Lord, Lord Renton. Apart from the serious implication about the Henry VIII clause in relation to power to amend the schedule, what new powers will define the type of person to be included? Will such regulations be brought before the House by statutory instrument? That will give the opportunity for both Houses of Parliament to consider them. Alternatively, is it simply
within the power of the Home Secretary to determine the category of people who fall within Schedule 3, as he does with the "white list", and so on?6.30 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: As I understand it, Clause 48 and Schedule 3 remove all powers for local authorities to provide support or assistance to four categories of ineligible person. Schedule 2 of the Local Government Act 2000 allows a very wide discretion for local authorities to act as they see fit to promote well-being in their particular areas.
I—and, I suspect, many other Members of the Committee—have received a substantial note from the Local Government Association strongly opposing this clause. The note seems to contain three central objections. First, the association objects, in principle, to what it sees as an unnecessary fettering of local authority powers under Section 2 of the Local Government Act. Secondly, it appears to believe that local authorities should retain the right, at their discretion, in relation to those categories of ineligible person, to provide support. Thirdly, the LGA strongly objects to a lack of consultation with local authorities before the provisions were included in the Bill.
On that last point, I understand that the clause was introduced during the proceedings in another place and that, contrary to the traditions that are enshrined in the system of protocols which lay down the relationship between central and local government, no prior consultation was undertaken. That is what I glean from the LGA's note. I, like other Members of the Committee, am anxious to hear from the Minister; in particular, I look forward to his reaction to the point on consultation.
Lord Renton: I was most impressed by my noble friend's remarks. He raised a matter to which I had not attributed much importance. Clearly, paragraph 14 on page 87 is the provision that mainly concerns local authorities. Some of the minor provisions in that regard could also affect local authorities. Will the Minister explain what other provisions in the schedule, apart from paragraph 14, would worry local authorities?
Lord Filkin: This is my first time at the Dispatch Box this afternoon. With the leave of the Committee, I should like to make a short statement relating to our debates on Tuesday, 9th July. When I have done that, I shall turn to Clause 48.
On Tuesday, 9th July at col. 602 I gave figures from memory concerning the success rate of asylum applicants. The figures that I gave related to initial decisions only; that was the issue in contention. I apologise for inadvertently misleading the Committee.
For the record, I point out that for 2001, 9 per cent of applicants were granted asylum and 17 per cent were granted exceptional leave to remain at the initial decision stage. We will shortly be publishing an estimated figure for 2001, including the figures for
appeals in the Home Office Statistical Bulletin on asylum statistics for 2001. That will contain the latest figures. We have, however, considered the applications made in 2000 under normal procedures and have examined the outcomes. At the initial decision stage, 11 per cent were recognised as refugees, 12 per cent were granted ELR and the remainder were refused. Of all those who were refused at the initial stage, we estimated that a further 8 per cent were successful after appeal to an adjudicator as either refugees or in being granted ELR; we do not currently have the split between the two. We also do not have comparable figures for those who are—or were—successful after appeal to the IAT or higher courts, but a very small proportion is involved. Our overall best estimate for 2000 is that 31 per cent of those who applied for asylum in that year were successful in being recognised as refugees or in being granted ELR. That figure of 31 per cent does not represent the number of those who were recognised as refugees; the two figures would be added together. I hope that before long we will be able to disaggregate the two figures, which will give us a better picture of the situation.I hope that that is helpful. I repeat the undertaking that I gave to place a short explanatory paper in the Library before the Bill's Report stage.
I turn to Clause 48. The provision restricts the type of support that is available to those who have citizenship or refugee status in other EU/EEA states who are coming to the UK and claiming benefits. At the same time, it restricts support that is available to other categories of individuals; that is, failed asylum seekers who can leave the UK but do not co-operate with removal directions, and individuals who reside in the UK illegally but who have not applied for asylum. That has been introduced at least in part to help local authorities by providing legal clarity when dealing with applications for support from those categories of individuals.
At the moment, different local authorities are adopting different approaches to claims for support from those individuals. Local authorities are being approached for social services support, normally under the National Assistance Act 1948 or, in the case of those with children, the Children Act 1989, as individuals fail the income-related benefits test.
There certainly are increasing numbers of individuals arriving in the UK and seeking social services assistance in those respects. That is placing a considerable demand on local authorities' resources and causes considerable problems for some of them. We do not know—the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, asked about this—the precise numbers with which we are faced. That indicates the problem being faced by the statutory agencies that are trying to cope with that influx. I shall give examples later of areas in which we know that there is a problem. For example, anecdotal evidence suggests that in Leicester alone between 2,000 and 10,000 people of Somali origin have migrated over the past 18 months or so. Although Dutch nationals of Somali origin highlight the problem, there are also reports of growing communities from other areas, such as Portugal and Montserrat. We are therefore
introducing these measures to help to ease the pressures that are being brought to bear on local authorities and at the same time to provide those individuals and their families with the means to return to their home country.Two recent cases in the courts have assisted in that area. The case of G v Barnet involved a Dutch national of Somali origin who asked for local authority accommodation to be provided for her to live with her child. Following a needs assessment, the local authority offered the means for them both to return home to Holland, where support was available to them, alongside an offer to take the child into care. The Court of Appeal held that that was a reasonable offer on the part of the local authority and that the authority was not obliged to house the family if they rejected the offer, although it would be obliged to accommodate the child, and was quite willing to do so.
This year, the cases of Ali and Mohammed v Birmingham involved similar circumstances. Following the Barnet judgment, the council exercised its new policy and carried out needs assessments in each case, which resulted in its offering transport to the families to return to the Netherlands, where they had welfare rights, with an offer to accommodate the children if the travel were declined. In those cases, the offers were not accepted and the case went to judicial review. The court held that, once again, that approach was lawful.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, asked for further evidence about whether there is a problem. I shall illustrate that briefly. Birmingham City Council brought to our attention the situation that it faced in 2000, when it received applications for support from more than 265 families. In July 2000, the council was supporting more than 200 families. As a consequence, in the financial year 2000-01, supporting those families cost £2.8 million in social services provision. In the following year, after it had tightened its policy, the cost to Birmingham City Council was £1.7 million. I recollect, as will other Members of the Committee, that Birmingham City Council approached the Department of Health towards the end of last year because of the extreme overspend on its social services budget in that year and was desperately seeking additional financial support. Clearly, those additional burdens cannot have helped it in any respect.
We have also been told that, in the last 18 months to July 2002, some 1,100 Somali children have arrived in Leicester, to be educated in Leicester schools, mostly at primary level. We have also had representations from the city of Sheffield as to the extent of their exposure to this problem, and seeking Government support to rectify it.
In some cases local authorities have essentially sought government support to put beyond doubt or risk the legal position, so that they are not constantly at the risk of challenge. In other cases, perhaps more like Leicester or Sheffield, they have asked whether central government would bail them out in relation to the costs to which they are exposed by exercising the discretion to pay out to families in this way. There is
undoubtedly a problem, certainly in the local authorities I have mentioned—Barnet, Birmingham, Leicester and Sheffield—but there is anecdotal evidence that it goes wider than that, although the department has not undertaken a systematic trawl of it.I should also mention that Leicester's chief executive has indicated to officials in the department that, to cover the £3 million additional costs they have incurred through the exercise of their discretion in this matter, it would require a council tax increase of over 5 per cent in the current year 2002–03 if they have to fund it locally—as they will clearly have to.
There is a problem, therefore, and it is quite a substantial and serious one for a number of local authorities. It is why, in part, the Government have responded to these representations and sought to clarify the position for the local authorities concerned.
Turning back to some of the specifics of the schedule, for those who have citizenship or refugee status in another EU or EEA state short-term accommodation may be provided to families with children, as well as a one-way journey to their home country. If the family do not take up the offer of travel or fail to travel, all support will be cut off, other than an offer of support for the children under the Children Act 1989. For asylum seekers whose claim has been rejected and who could leave the UK but who fail to comply with the removal directions, all support will also come to an end. Local authorities will only be able to provide an offer of support to children under the Children Act 1989. Also, for those who are in the UK unlawfully and who apply to the local authority for support, including failed asylum seekers, the local authorities would be required to inform the Home Office so that removal can be arranged.
The local authority may provide short-term accommodation to families with children until the date of removal. Should the family fail to travel, all support will be terminated other than an offer of support for the children under the Children Act 1989.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Avebury: I wonder whether the Minister can help me? I have a case at the moment which has not come before the authorities, where a family was resident in France. The refugee status of the head of household was withdrawn and so he came to Great Britain and is now living here. Would he have support withdrawn, when there is evidence from the French authorities that they no longer recognise him as a refugee in their country?
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page