| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, I had not anticipated speaking in this debate this evening, as asylum and immigration are not my expertise. But I do know a little about the care and development of children, and want to speak on their behalf.
I do not condone illegal immigration, and appreciate the difficult decisions that have to be made in this area by the Government. But we should not be making families with children destitute without even the backup of the workhouse referred to by the right reverend Prelate, whatever the provocation.
The protection of our young is a test of our civilised society. The threat of removal of children into care is no answer in these circumstances. No child should be put through the trauma of removal from caring—even if misguided—parents. I declare an interest as a social worker who has, in the past, had the job of removing children from families and placing them in care. That situation is especially so, if these children have already been uprooted, having experienced situations of possible fear and persecution, and whose only stability is their family.
Who will do this? If they have caring parents who believe that they are protecting their children by their actions, then all the children's legislation would prevent their removal, as in the amendment. It is against the ethical code of we social workers to remove children who are not in need of care or protection, for any other reason than an economic one. They would then, surely, invoke the power of the 1963 Act which under Section 1 empowers local authorities to make payments to keep families together. This would simply remove the financial burden from central Government departments to local government.
I find it hard to understand how a caring government, committed to children, to whom "every child matters" can contemplate this course of action. I
beg for the clause's withdrawal, and should the matter be pressed to a vote, I hope that all Peers of conscience would vote against it.9.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: I have been wondering, as the debate has gone on, had I had a family and young children, what I would have done if I had been placed in the position envisaged in Clause 8. I have tried to consider this on a twofold basis—on the basis of having a genuine, well founded fear of persecution and of not having one. Whatever side of the basic argument we are on, we have to admit that both sides exist.
Had I a well founded fear of persecution, under no circumstances whatever would I have considered going back to the country I had left with my children. This is not just a matter of fear—it is a matter of pride. I would not have been willing to crawl back and submit to the dictator from whom I had fled, least of all in response to what I would have regarded as a most outrageous exercise of the power of the purse by the Government of this country. In fact, that attempt of the use of the withdrawal of support as a weapon of bullying would have made me more determined not to return than I was before.
This would have left me with a limited string of options. There is, of course, the option, occasionally taken by fathers affected by the CSA, of killing the whole family, which I hope I would not have taken. There is the option of trying to escape as a family together, but travelling with young children, even across the Irish Sea, tends to attract attention. I think I probably would have adopted what I think of as the Moses in the bulrushes route. I would have left the children behind in the hope that they would be cared for at least enough to be kept fed and alive in this country while I and my wife would have been left the choice either of trying to escape across the Irish Sea and hoping that we could do better in another place, or that of suicide. Which of these we would have chosen I cannot say until I know the state of health and the circumstances in which the choice would have to be made.
Had I not had a well founded fear of persecution, the first thought to which I would have turned would, of course, be crime. I would very much hope that by that time the Government had introduced identity cards because stealing them would make it much easier to get a new identity fast enough for the family to survive. I would then have hoped that by my skill in crime, if I had it, I could keep the family alive in a surreptitious way. If I did not have that skill, I do not know what the alternative would have been. There is the alternative of suicide.
We heard earlier, during the debate on trafficking, that some parents, especially from poor countries, who believe that sending their children here, unaccompanied, under a trafficking scheme, is actually in their best interests. I could have been forced, by weight of circumstance—by government policy—to join the list of those people. But still, I think, in any of these circumstances, I cannot imagine that of all the decisions I might have taken—and I can think of none that would not have been miserable—I would
possibly have considered return as one of the options in response to this particular exercise of power. The need to resist it would have been overwhelming.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: At Second Reading on 15 March, at col. 57 of the Official Report, I made clear our position on the withdrawal of benefits. We recognise that the withdrawal of benefits has been, and continues to be, an extremely sensitive and controversial issue. Those on all sides in the debate have as their greatest care what happens to the children in these cases.
We had a significant debate on the matter during the passage of the previous asylum Bill. It was the first debate of my Home Office brief some two years ago. Press reports before the publication of this Bill represented the Government as using the withdrawal of support as an incentive to force asylum seekers with children to leave the country.
When the Bill was printed, we accepted that it did not have such provisions within it. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark has already remarked, the then Minister in another place, Beverley Hughes, gave a series of undertakings. The most recent was in a Written Answer on 17 March (at col. 338W of the Official Report) and it was the clearest and most succinct of all. Given our debate tonight, it is appropriate to invite the Minister to give as unequivocal a commitment on that same matter.
My colleagues in another place accepted the undertakings of the then Minister, Beverley Hughes. If the Minister were able to give an honourable undertaking tonight—because all her undertakings are honourable—I would certainly accept it.
I listened carefully to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, who has so much experience in these matters. He was right to refer to particular cases and to the trauma that families go through. When I chaired a family court as a magistrate, I had to hear cases brought by local authorities on behalf of children where a care order could have been issued. I found those to be the most difficult of all cases. I also chaired criminal courts, but those were the most complex issues to hear and the most difficult to decide. Although I sat as a chair of a family court for some 11 years, I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of care orders that were ultimately made. I can remember the circumstances of each and every one. Therefore, the Minister, who has had a lifetime of work in the family courts, will have considered each and every part of the clause before she presented the Government's case to this House.
It is important that we do not accept proposals that would act as an incentive to force children into care. On the basis that Clause 8 does not perform that function, I do not oppose it and I look forward to hearing the undertakings of the Minister.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I immediately repeat the undertakings of my right honourable and honourable friends in another place. I repeat the undertakings of my colleague, Beverley Hughes, who was then the immigration and asylum Minister. The
noble Baroness has referred to them as set out on 17 March and we do not retreat from them in any degree. The Minister stated:
- "There is nothing in the Bill which changes in any way the grounds on which children may be taken into care. The Bill simply provides that families, illegally resident in the UK once their claims have failed, would no longer be entitled to support at the expense of the taxpayer if they refuse to co-operate with efforts to return them home. If, by putting themselves in this position, parents put their children at risk, it would be for the local authority to decide how the interests of their children should be protected under existing child protection legislation. We do not believe that many, if any, parents would put their children in this position".—[Official Report, Commons, 17/3/04; col. 338W.]
There has been much debate involving many noble Lords who have a keen concern about the welfare of families and the welfare of children. Therefore, I was not surprised to hear the contributions from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, who has spoken on so many occasions on such issues, from the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, with her long experience in social work, and from the noble Earl, Lord Russell. In order to make our position absolutely clear, it may be appropriate for me—not withstanding the late hour—to give a full answer in relation to this part of the debate. A number of concerns have been raised.
I reassure the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark that we do not think it is ever appropriate to use children as bargaining counters, and we do not so do through this legislation. Neither do we seek to separate children unnecessarily from their parents—that is not the intent behind the provisions. Nor do we hark back to the days of the workhouse, where separation of parent and child was done in some means to punish, or to enable the parents to take a better advantage or understanding of their responsibilities. Nothing could be further from the point.
I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for outlining the issues where the Government have done well, and would reassure him that we do not wish people to be on the edge, or placed in such a position that they take decisions which are disadvantageous and injurious to their own health and/or injurious to their children. I say the same in response to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and his description of those who may be thus obliged.
Clause 8 specifies a fifth class of person, a failed asylum-seeker with family, who will cease to be eligible for support under Schedule 3, paragraph 1 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which relates to the withholding and withdrawing of support. The clause adds a new paragraph—paragraph 7A—to the schedule. Failed asylum seekers with dependent children receive asylum support, living expenses and accommodation until they leave the United Kingdom or fail to comply with a removal direction, if sooner. Under Clause 8, if the Secretary of State certifies that, in his opinion, such people have failed without reasonable excuse—I emphasise "without reasonable excuse"—to take reasonable steps to leave the United Kingdom voluntarily or place themselves in the position in which they are able to do so, by, for example, co-operating with
steps taken to obtain a travel document on their behalf, asylum support for the family will cease. The family is also rendered ineligible for various other types of support or assistance, although the children in the family may still be supported by, for example, a local authority.
The intent behind this legislation is to help those who have failed in their application to leave this country in a humane, decent and well managed way. Support will cease 14 days after the failed asylum seeker receives the copy of the Secretary of State's certificate.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page