| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved, as an amendment to Amendment No.3, Amendment No. 3A:
- Line 2, at end insert—
The noble Baroness said: For the convenience of the Committee, many amendments have been grouped together. I shall now speak to 10 amendments in my name in one group. The Committee will be relieved to hear that some of my questions need not now be asked because of the Minister's helpful explanation. That is especially the case with Amendment No. 3A, under which I had hoped to elicit what would happen to families with children and those with special needs. Predominantly, the Minister has answered my questions; I have only one remaining question about support for such persons. Can he tell the Committee how the Government intend to define the term "families with children"?
I turn to Amendment No. 3B, which would require the Secretary of State to publish guidelines—something to which the Minister referred—to,
My purpose is to ask the Minister how the Secretary of State will decide what is meant by "reasonably", in the phrase "reasonably practicable"? What if the asylum seeker is ill on arrival and has to go to hospital? What if he arrives on the back of a lorry? How would he know that he ought to make a claim as soon as he arrives, as soon as he is pitched out onto the M2? What if the asylum seeker is not allowed time to make a claim for legal advice first? Will he have the opportunity to get legal advice? What if he is given the wrong legal
I turn to Amendment No. 3E. Subsection (3) of the new clause states that a local authority,
The next amendment is Amendment No. 3F. Subsection (6) states:
How does a local authority come to that decision? What should make it believe that a person has made a claim for asylum? Does the local authority need a piece of paper on which the Home Secretary states that a claim has been made? How does it make that judgment? At the moment, it looks as if it is left open to the local authority to come to a subjective judgment. My amendment says simply that, in making such a decision, the local authority must have "reason to believe" that the person involved has made an application for asylum. That puts things on a more objective ground.
Amendments Nos. 3G and 3H refer to the guidance that, one hopes, is to be published. How binding will the guidance be? When will we see it? Will it be published and, therefore, available to lawyers and advisers? Will it be public property? Will it be published before the Bill receives Royal Assent, which is not too far in the future—just a couple of weeks? It is public knowledge that the Government intend to enact the Bill as soon as possible. The BBC website and the newspapers have told us that the Home Secretary told M Sarkozy that the Bill would be in place by mid-November.
With Amendment No. 5, the Minister aims to insert another new clause. My amendments, Amendments Nos. 5B and 5C, relate to that new clause, which covers the use of false or incomplete information. If the Secretary of State is not satisfied that the applicant has provided complete or accurate information or that he is co-operating with the inquiries carried out to establish eligibility for asylum, he can refuse to consider the application. My amendments probe to see how stringent that requirement will be.
I want to probe the Government on the matter because I was present when the noble Lord, Lord Peston, probed the Government on their use of the
One must ask the obvious question: how will the Secretary of State know whether the information is complete? If one does not know something, one does not know what one does not know. That is the usual argument.
We are cantering towards a welcome close. The purpose of Amendment No. 5D is to probe to see whether the applicant will be assured of receiving independent and—preferably—legal advice at this early and important stage of the application. If so, how will that legal advice be guaranteed?
Amendment No. 5E would require the Secretary of State to,
I underline the fact that we support the making of both of the Minister's amendments, Amendments Nos. 3 and 5. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I apologise for intervening now; I should have intervened after the Minister's speech on Amendments Nos. 3 and 5.
I wanted to explain that it was hoped that a report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights would be available for this re-commitment. That is not possible; the Committee is in India or Canada or somewhere. I am a member of that Committee, and I am told that it cannot meet until Tuesday and that, therefore, there cannot be a report. However, I have been shown a draft report from Professor David Feldman. I have disclosed it to no one, but I am entitled to say that I agree with it. It is highly critical of the amendments on various grounds. I ask that some of the questions that arise be supplied to the Committee, when it meets, so that the matter can be dealt with on Report.
Essentially, the questions are simple. First, can the Government give a categorical assurance that assistance would be available to all those who would, otherwise, be left destitute? Secondly, must there not be some causal connection between an act or omission of an improper nature and the fact of being left homeless and destitute? Thirdly, ought not the burden of proof, to which the Minister referred, to rest with the Secretary of State in establishing whether the conditions for withholding support are compatible with human rights and that the conditions have been met, if a person is to be left without adequate housing, food or clothing? Fourthly, given that there is to be no
The last question is whether adequate safeguards have been provided against the violation of the human rights of children, under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, of anyone else, under the European Convention on Human Rights, or of adults, under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Are there safeguards against the violation of convention rights, as defined by the Human Rights Act 1998? It would be a service to the Committee if in due course—and before Tuesday, when the Joint Committee meets—answers could be given to those questions.
Lord Dholakia: I thank the Minister for these amendments on recommitment. He has set out broadly the context within which they have been framed and I take this opportunity to put forward the views of this side of the Committee. There are issues of concern in regard to the amendments and we shall explain our position during the debate. I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Russell will be contributing on particular points.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for the point he raised. I was given to understand that the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which is abroad, may have expressed an opinion but that nothing will be published until next week. This is unfortunate because the results of the Joint Committee's deliberations would have been most helpful.
However, a few minutes ago I received a note informing me that,
It would be extremely helpful to our deliberations if the Minister will explain whether or not he has access to the information from the Joint Committee. If not, at least will he explain whether the issue of human rights was taken into account when considering these amendments?
Another issue of concern reflects information that I have been given in another note. The Home Secretary's adviser on nationality, Sir Bernard Crick, when talking about the support mechanism for asylum seekers, is reported to have said in Scotland that NASS staff were,
Speaking at a debate on asylum seekers in Edinburgh, Sir Bernard said:
I raise the issue because it is a matter of serious concern if these comments reflect the views of the Government's adviser on the issue of assistance—or, for that matter, withdrawal of assistance—for asylum seekers.
Further, Just existence, a report on the lives of asylum seekers who have lost entitlements to benefits in the United Kingdom, has recently been published. In the report, the comments of the chief executive of the Refugee Council on this issue are relevant to the amendments. He states:
The report cites the cases of 15 individual asylum seekers and explains what has happened to them. I hope that the report does not reflect the basis of the way in which we treat people who are genuinely being persecuted in their home land and are looking to our civilised country for help and assistance. I should say that the report relates to the effects and implications of the 1996 Act.
I shall ask my noble friend Lord Russell to deal in detail with our objections to some of the issues identified in the amendments. I hope that the Government will seriously consider whether the withdrawal of assistance to refugees is, perhaps, not necessarily the right thing to do.
"( ) This section does not apply to—
(a) families with children; or
(b) those with special needs."
"assist him to make a decision as to whether or not a person has made an application for asylum as soon as reasonably practicable after that person's arrival in the United Kingdom".
I certainly agree with the Minister's overarching hope on guidelines—that they should not undermine the system that they are intended to illuminate. I shall listen with care to his answers to my questions on guidelines. Having just heard two comments by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, about her hopes in opposition, I recall (when sitting on Benches opposite listening to her) her always referring to the need for guidelines. So I am perhaps following in good footsteps and shall press as hard on this Government as she did on ours.
"may not provide or arrange for the provision of support"
to an asylum seeker, if,
"the Secretary of State is not satisfied that the claim was made as soon as reasonably practicable".
It is a similar point. The Minister tried to make it clear that the Government wanted to take away local authorities' discretion in this area. Yet, the use of the word "may" in subsection (3) makes it look as though the Government are allowing the local authority discretion as to whether it shall make benefit payments. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that. Do the Government intend to allow discretion under subsection (3)?
"An authority which proposes to provide . . . 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".
"publish guidelines to which he will have regard when making a decision under this section".
I shall be intrigued to hear how the Minister will answer the series of questions on guidelines. They will be important in explaining to asylum seekers and those who advise them how the new clause will operate.
4.45 p.m.
"The Joint Committee on Human Rights has given preliminary consideration to the amendments and new clauses proposed by the Government to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill in the Lords.
"The Committee considers that these proposals all raise critical human rights issues, and it expects to publish a report next week to enable the House of Lords to take the Committee's views into account when debating the Government's proposals".
"second-rate civil servants who were both angry at, and jealous of, the asylum seekers they were supposed to help".
"NASS was hastily created and staffed by people who wanted better jobs in the civil service and didn't get them.
"They are not good at community work which is what they are in effect expected to do. They are low-paid, angry at their clients and jealous of their clients while trying to administer complex procedures".
"In this report you will read about some of the people who have suffered as a result. These are people who are in despair, who talk about their lives as deaths. People who are living on bread and water, who walk for miles to get a hot meal or who are sleeping on floorboards under blankets in empty flats, and who are being pushed from pillar to post. Many of them are too poor even to afford the bus fare to the solicitor dealing with their asylum claims.
"These are not young, healthy adults, but people who are already severely traumatised. Several have been tortured in the home countries, two have had to leave their children without the opportunity even to say goodbye.
"British asylum policy is not harsh by accident. It is the intention that by treating people badly here, others will be deterred from fleeing to the UK".
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page