| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I have two points. First, the issue of hospital downrating, which we discussed on the State Pension Credit Bill, and how it will be covered by the new proposals—particularly how the new systems will work with those of the NHS—is not mentioned in the document. Secondly, on implementation, how will the proposals overlap with "supporting people" initiatives and transitional housing benefit which are underway at the moment? Can the Minister tell us anything about that?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, unless I have missed the point, I do not see how it will have any interaction with hospital downrating. The policies on that have already been determined. Anyone in receipt of existing housing benefit will receive that housing benefit because it is adjusted already to the local reference rent. That will continue. Therefore, all the tapers and so on that we discussed earlier about hospital downrating will continue to operate on those rents.
Essentially, we are aligning housing benefit with standard reference rents and if one is paid less than that one keeps the difference. There is no big change in terms of people's financial circumstances. Having the matter up front allows one to handle the processes with speed, transparency and security. As for the "supporting people" initiatives, although we expect tenants to be paid directly, for the vulnerable special arrangements will continue to be made.
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill
4.16 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Filkin): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment) on this Bill in respect of Parts 3, 5 and 8.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment) in respect of Parts 3, 5 and 8.—(Lord Filkin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee (on Recommitment) accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD GEDDES) in the Chair.]
Clause 44 [Section 43: supplemental]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 1:
- Page 25, line 42, leave out "Paragraph 2" and insert "Paragraphs 2 and 6"
The noble Lord said: These are minor and technical amendments to Clause 44 and Schedule 9 which have no practical effect but merely preserve the current position under the 1999 Act.
When deciding whether a person is destitute and therefore eligible for support under Section 95 of the 1999 Act, the Secretary of State must take into account the value of a person's assets. Paragraph 6 of Schedule 8 to the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 currently enables the Secretary of State to make provision in regulations for the valuation of assets. Once this Bill comes into effect, paragraph 6 will be redundant because Clause 43(6) of the Bill inserts a new Section 95(8) of the Act which contains the necessary provision. These amendments rectify the position by deleting the redundant 1999 Act provision. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I support these amendments. It may be convenient to the Committee if I make it clear that we welcome the recommitment of the Bill today. Throughout the afternoon our amendments will be probing amendments. How could we not welcome the new government clauses as, in most part, they appear to reiterate what my right honourable friend Michael Howard was trying to achieve in the 1996 Act. That appears to be the case and we shall consider later amendments with interest. That will govern the way in which we approach the debates today.
Lord Dholakia: These are technical amendments and the noble Lord has our support. Obviously, much of the later discussion in the debate will be that of probing the Government's intention in the new amendments. Certainly, we shall give consideration at the appropriate time as to how to deal with them.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 2:
- Page 25, line 43, leave out "destitution"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 44, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 3:
- After Clause 53, insert the following new clause—
The noble Lord said: I hope that it will be of help to the Committee if I speak briefly about the Government's overall consideration of the position regarding asylum and immigration in order to set the context for our discussions today.
First, it is obvious to us all that there is a problem. It is illustrated by the fact that Britain now has the highest number of asylum applications in Europe. The
Secondly, although it is not the most fundamental of issues, the asylum process and the asylum support process are extremely expensive. The National Asylum Support Service support to asylum seekers is currently running at over £1 billion a year. At the same time, the system poses pressures on local communities. There are currently 83,000 people being supported by NASS in local communities, often concentrated in some of the most deprived communities in Britain.
Thirdly, as the Committee knows, the trafficking system that brings people to the country is strongly criminally dominated. I shall not go into detail; the Committee knows that.
Those points are by way of background. Perhaps they would matter less if it were not for the last two points. We know that most of those who claim asylum are not found to qualify under the 1951 Geneva Convention. Even more importantly, we know that people in the world who are in the greatest need of asylum are not able to get to Britain or other places of refuge. So one has a system where numbers are rising; there is an enormous amount of turbulence in the system; and yet there is a worry among all Benches that those who most need asylum in the world are not getting it.
The Government have a clear view as to what is a better way forward. In essence, we should recognise the contribution that migration makes to our society and we should have an expanded system of managed migration. We have seen two recent announcements by the Home Secretary to this effect to open up more managed migration into Britain than previously has been the case. It may well be that we should go further in the future.
It is essential that we are successful in reducing illegal migration and the manipulation of the asylum system. We need to have more order and more control in the system to make it possible to make faster decisions for those who do apply and, above all, for those who need the protection that we should be giving them under the 1951 convention.
Lastly, and most importantly, the Government are clear that the more that we can bring the system, which is dominated by criminality and confused by the volume of economic migration under control, the more that we can win the argument for, both in the European Union and the world, significantly expanding resettlement schemes, working with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, so that we can give refuge to those in the world who most need asylum who are currently not able to get it.
That sets the context. The Committee knows that. Therefore, it sets the context while we focus today on the specifics of how we believe it is necessary to get a stronger grip on the current situation.
I start by focusing on that and the purpose of the amendments tabled with Amendment No. 3. The linking theme in many of the Bill's provisions is a move
This means that we shall be able to decide cases progressively more quickly and to act effectively on the basis of those decisions. That should mean that genuine refugees who need our protection will be recognised more quickly and set on the path of successful integration in this country. There will be a greater likelihood that those with no basis for remaining here will return, as they should, to their own countries.
The changes to the support arrangements further strengthen this strategy. The current ability to access support on the basis of an unexplained late application for asylum, or on the basis of a non-existent or frankly incredible account of how the applicant came to be here, is an important factor in our lack of effective control over key parts of the process.
It is an entirely reasonable expectation that those who want the United Kingdom's protection should claim asylum at the earliest opportunity. That will enable us to help the genuine cases by allowing access to our integration arrangements as soon as possible. At the same time—and I make no apology for this—it will increase the likelihood that those who do not need our protection will return home.
It is not therefore helpful to the achievement of our overall aim of an effective asylum process if there is no encouragement to applicants to come forward and to be frank with us.
What do we expect will be the impact of this? On past experience, it is likely that a great proportion of asylum applications will be made on entry at the ports. That seems to us right and proper. Currently, two-thirds of applications for asylum are not made on entry at the ports, they are made in-country. Applicants are likely to modify their behaviour and to come forward at an earlier stage. But all destitute asylum seekers will continue to be able to access support providing that they come forward at the earliest opportunity and are straight with us. The real aim is to produce an orderly and managed process in which those behaviours are encouraged and misuse is not rewarded.
The new clause, therefore, ends the presumption of support for those who apply for asylum in-country unless they give a truthful and credible account of their circumstances and how they arrived here and can therefore demonstrate that they are claiming asylum at the earliest opportunity.
Accordingly, we have tabled Amendment No. 3. It has the effect of preventing the Secretary of State, in practice the National Asylum Support Service, from providing support to an asylum seeker where the
We expect asylum seekers to apply for asylum at the earliest opportunity and we see no reason why, if they are in genuine fear of persecution in their country of origin, they should not do so. We also expect them to be straight with us about their circumstances and to be prepared to explain how they have been supporting themselves since arriving in the UK and why they now need to come to us for support. Again, why should they not do so? On that basis, it is our view that it is perfectly reasonable to make it a condition of access to support that people claiming asylum do both.
Anyone who can show that he has made his claim as soon as he was able and can show that he is destitute and has nowhere else to turn for support will be eligible for support from NASS. However, people who may have been living in this country for some time but have no real claim to remain cannot expect to rely on making a claim for asylum as a means of extending their stay at the taxpayers' expense. It is wholly reasonable to expect that if an individual is genuinely fleeing persecution they ask for protection as soon as they arrive in the United Kingdom. If they do not do so, that can only cast doubt on their credibility and intentions.
I turn to the detail of the new clause. The provisions under which the Secretary of State is precluded from giving support are Sections 4, 95 and 98 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and Clauses 15 and 22 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill, when enacted.
This will mean that support will be withheld both under the existing arrangements and under those for the provision of support in accommodation centres if the Secretary of State is not satisfied that an asylum claim has been made as soon as reasonably practicable after arrival in the UK.
The burden of proof will be on the applicant for support to show that it was not reasonably practicable to have made his asylum claim sooner. However, the mere fact that an asylum seeker has been in the United Kingdom for a long period will not necessarily preclude him from support. Conditions in his home country may have only recently deteriorated such as to warrant the claim for asylum. In such a case, it would not have been "reasonably practicable" to have made the claim sooner.
I should also reassure the Committee that, by virtue of subsection (5), we have sought to ensure that if a person is refused support, he can nevertheless access support from the Secretary of State, if the Secretary of State is satisfied that he has demonstrated that due to his personal circumstances there is a breach of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. As the Committee will also read in subsection (5)(b), families with dependant children aged under 18 years will not be affected by the measure. We do not want the actions of fathers or mothers visited on their children.
At this point, I should make absolutely clear that the burden of supporting asylum applicants caught by the provisions will not pass to local authorities. We are not reproducing the situation that arose in 1996. However, the National Assistance Act 1948 will remain available, as it is under the current arrangements, to those asylum seekers who have a need for care and attention that has not been caused solely by destitution or its effects. To illustrate, a person who has a chronic need for support will be able to access it under that Act to a level that makes it possible for him/her to be properly dealt with.
The amendment also prevents local authorities providing support under the Housing Act 1996 and the Local Government Act 2000. Section 2 of the latter Act gives local authorities a wide power, inter alia, to promote and improve economic and social well-being in their area. Although we would not expect local authorities to exercise those powers to support asylum seekers, because that responsibility lies with the Home Office, it is sensible to ensure that people affected by the present measure should not be able to seek to get a local authority to support them under Section 2 of the Local Government Act 2000 instead. We applied the same principle to Schedule 3 and removed local authorities' discretion to use their general well-being power to support those classes of person covered by the benefit shopping policy. Although that has been the subject of discussion between the Government and the Local Government Association, at heart it is to protect local authorities from legal challenge that would impose unreasonable burdens on them.
Section 188(3) of the Housing Act 1996 provides local authorities with a discretionary power to secure that accommodation is available for an applicant pending a review on a decision. Section 204(4) of the Act provides local authorities with such power while an appeal is outstanding. We intend to be consistent with a similar amendment tabled to Schedule 3 by ensuring that those affected by the provisions cannot receive housing assistance pending a review or while an appeal is ongoing. Such assistance should not be provided, given that individuals refused support under the new provisions are clearly not eligible for housing assistance.
In addition to the prohibition on local authorities' providing support, they are required under subsection (6) to inform the Secretary of State if they believe that a person who has applied to them for support has made a claim for asylum, and must act in accordance with statutory guidance in determining whether the prohibition on support applies. The aim is to help local authorities to identify people whose support falls to the Secretary of State, if anyone, to provide. As I have said, if such persons fall on hard times to the degree that there may be a breach of Article 3, it will fall to the Secretary of State to provide support, not the local authority.
Subsection (10) prevents a person from appealing to an asylum support adjudicator against the Secretary of State's decision that it would have been reasonably practicable to have made the asylum claim sooner. The existing rights of appeal to an asylum support
Amendment No. 5 amends paragraph 12(c) of Schedule 8 to the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. That paragraph provides that regulations may make provision for the circumstances in which an application for National Asylum Support Service support may not be entertained. The amendment provides that regulations may, in particular, provide for an application not to be entertained where the Secretary of State is not satisfied that the information provided is complete or accurate, or that the applicant is co-operating with enquiries made by the Secretary of State.
Under our current procedures, emergency accommodation provided under Section 98 of the Immigration Act 1999 may be provided to asylum seekers while NASS considers an application for support under Section 95 of that Act. However, would-be asylum seekers—mainly persons here unlawfully—have, for example, been accessing emergency accommodation in London and elsewhere even before they have lodged an asylum claim. We must have due regard to taxpayers' considerations and develop procedures that enable us to provide support in a more efficient and managed way.
The amendment will allow us to draft new regulations to enable us to challenge more effectively those who seek to abuse the support system. We will turn away those who do not furnish sufficient information to enable us to make a decision on their support application, who deliberately mislead us or who do not co-operate with procedures. They will not be allowed to access temporary support. If they return with the required information, of course we will entertain the application and temporary support, Section 95 support or accommodation centre support will then be provided as long as they otherwise qualify.
Many amendments have been tabled in response to the provisions. I shall not respond to them in detail now, because I should much prefer to hear what is said to advance them. I shall make only two brief points. First, we fear that several of the amendments undermine the intended effect of the new clause. We believe that support should not be provided to people who apply in-country for asylum unless they do so at the earliest opportunity and provide a credible account of the circumstances of their arrival and how they have been supporting themselves to date. It is right and proper to introduce an amendment to that effect.
Secondly, a number of the amendments would place a duty on the Secretary of State to publish guidelines about various aspects of policy. Although I understand the motivation behind that requirement, our concern—to which I am sure we shall return later—is that publishing highly detailed guidance may well undermine the policy, as it may be exploited by those seeking to abuse the system.
I regret the fact that I have taken some time in moving the amendment, but I thought that it might be helpful to the Committee to set out the broad context of the Government's thinking and the specific context of the amendment. I beg to move.
2 "LATE CLAIM FOR ASYLUM: REFUSAL OF SUPPORT
(1) The Secretary of State may not provide or arrange for the provision of support to a person under a provision mentioned in subsection (2) if—
(a) the person makes a claim for asylum which is recorded by the Secretary of State, and
(b) the Secretary of State is not satisfied that the claim was made as soon as reasonably practicable after the person's arrival in the United Kingdom.
(2) The provisions are—
(a) sections 4, 95 and 98 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) (support for asylum-seeker, &c.), and
(b) sections 16 and 23 of this Act (accommodation centre).
(3) An authority may not provide or arrange for the provision of support to a person under a provision mentioned in subsection (4) if—
(a) the person has made a claim for asylum, and
(b) the Secretary of State is not satisfied that the claim was made as soon as reasonably practicable after the person's arrival in the United Kingdom.
(4) The provisions are—
(a) section 29(1)(b) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 (c. 26) (accommodation pending review),
(b) section 188(3) or 204(4) of the Housing Act 1996 (c. 52) (accommodation pending review or appeal), and
(c) section 2 of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22) (promotion of well-being).
(5) This section shall not prevent—
(a) the exercise of a power by the Secretary of State to the extent necessary for the purpose of avoiding a breach of a person's Convention rights (within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42)), or
(b) the provision of support under section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) or section 16 of this Act in accordance with section 122 of that Act (children).
(6) An authority which proposes to provide or arrange for the provision of support to a person under a provision mentioned in subsection (4)—
(a) must inform the Secretary of State if the authority believes that the person has made a claim for asylum,
(b) must act in accordance with any guidance issued by the Secretary of State to determine whether subsection (3) applies, and
(c) shall not be prohibited from providing or arranging for the provision of support if the authority has complied with paragraph (a) and (b) and concluded that subsection (3) does not apply.
(7) The Secretary of State may by order—
(a) add, remove or amend an entry in the list in subsection (4);
(b) provide for subsection (3) not to have effect in specified cases or circumstances.
(8) An order under subsection (7)—
(a) may include transitional, consequential or incidental provision,
(b) must be made by statutory instrument, and
(c) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
(9) For the purposes of this section "claim for asylum" has the same meaning as in section 17.
(10) A decision of the Secretary of State that this section prevents him from providing or arranging for the provision of support to a person is not a decision that the person does not qualify for support for the purpose of section 103 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) (appeals).
(11) This section does not prevent a person's compliance with a residence restriction imposed in reliance on section 64 (induction)."
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page