Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill

[back to previous text]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Ms Rosie Winterton): I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns, but the amendments are unnecessary and perhaps unhelpful. The aim of the clause is to increase the flexibility with which the Home Office can reimburse local authorities, but the amendments would restrict it. The amendment would make payments in advance of need, yet we all accept that this sector has a volatile and demand-led population that is difficult to forecast. The amendment would make local authorities produce estimates of the number of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children to be supported in the future and the likely costs incurred. As well as the inherent difficulties, it could result in large balances being held in local authority accounts that could not be used elsewhere, which would be an improper use of Government funds.

Following on from previous representations—I know that Opposition Members welcome this—the Government have already moved to making quarterly payments in arrears to local authorities to support adults and families, and we intend to extend the system to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. That will do a great deal to remedy the problems suffered by local authorities without the need for complex advance payment systems.

The second part of the amendment would fix grant levels for all unaccompanied asylum-seeking children

Column Number: 212

to the same amount without taking into account the level of support required. Costs to local authorities are dependent on the actual support that they provide to children, assessed on a one-to-one rather than a crude age basis. For the first time last year, the grant regime recognised that by continuing the higher rate of support for older children whose initial assessment had shown that they required support under section 20 of the Children Act 1989. The higher rate for children under that section rather than on an age basis reflects the care costs required to meet children's needs as assessed under strict guidance issued by the Department of Health, the Home Office and the Department for Education and Skills.

It would be wrong, and possibly damaging to children, to pre-empt the assessment by prescribing levels of care based on age. That would not ensure that they received appropriate care and would not achieve best value for money. We cannot justify paying the higher rate to all, regardless of need and without assuring value for money.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that a thorough review of the grant mechanism is planned, and that the overwhelming request from local authorities has been for more flexibility rather than prescription. I hope that, with those assurances, he will not feel it necessary to press the amendment.

Mr. Allan: I am grateful to the Minister for her response and for the assurance about the quarterly payment system, which is welcomed by local authorities. She said that is was difficult to have systems for payment in advance. Could that be explored? There are other situations in which that occurs, such as when teachers go on to higher rates of pay. I have sat on local authority committees dealing with special grants, and I saw how the anticipated figure is calculated, paid in advance and then settled in the end. It may be more difficult to run that for asylum-seeking children, but I suspect that London boroughs have a steady rate of such children and having the cash up front would make quite a difference to their social services budgets. I suspect that the balancing up would not be too complex. In view of the difficulties for local authorities' social services budgets, I hope that the general principle is established that the payments should be made as soon as possible. There has been progress from an annual payment in arrears to a quarterly payment in arrears, and I look forward to continued progress. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Malins: I want to reiterate that the quarterly payment in arrears is an improvement. I recall a good debate on unaccompanied asylum-seeking minors a few weeks ago when the figure of 6,500 was discussed. That is an awful lot of young people. I also remember the interesting formula for the payments in the regulations, which, I remarked at the time, required a mathematical genius to assess. I have received a letter from the leader of Kent county council describing some of the problems it has in dealing

Column Number: 213

with young asylum seekers. I hope that the Minister has taken those problems on board. We had a good debate on the special grant, and we welcome the provisions that came from it. We have no difficulties with the Government's proposals. Indeed, we welcome them.

I have referred in the past to assessing the age of a young asylum seeker. I moved an amendment to the effect that the Secretary of State should not inquire into a person's age until he is satisfied that that young person has had access to legal advice and assistance. It is a suitable point to raise again on clause stand part. I do not think that the Minister will undertake to do that, but I would be satisfied if she would accept the general thrust of my argument, which is that NGOs are sometimes concerned about the questioning of young people of about that age. It is a sensitive area and needs particularly delicate handling.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 37

Failed asylum-seeker

Mr. Allan: I beg to move amendment No. 215, in page 20, line 7, after 'the', insert 'essential living needs and'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 261, in page 20, line 9, at end insert

    'Or,

    (c) if his claim for asylum was accepted.'.

Mr. Allan: In principle we welcome the change provided in the clause, as this is an area of particular concern. When we considered the 1999 Act, we recognised that there could be categories of individuals who had to remain in the UK after the rejection of an asylum claim, either because they could not travel home at that stage or because they were seeking to explore various judicial avenues. There was considerable debate about whether the right to access the due legal process would be infringed if an individual were given that right but no means of support to allow him or her to exercise it. We welcome the provision of accommodation, but amendment No. 215 would extend that to provide accommodation and essential living needs—a package that would enable individuals to remain and exercise their rights or be supported until they could leave the UK. I would be interested to hear how the Government expect the accommodation package to be provided. Is their view that essential living needs are implicit in the provision or is it an accommodation only package?

11.45 am

Mr. Malins: I rise merely to say that my name is on the amendment and that I, too, would be interested to hear the Minister's response. There is an argument for widening the clause to cover essential living needs as well as accommodation, in order to enable the person concerned to be adequately maintained during a difficult period.

Column Number: 214

Ms Winterton: As hon. Members have said, the clause extends the scope of section 4 of the 1999 Act to allow the provision of accommodation to people whose asylum claims have been rejected and to their dependants, whether such people were originally given temporary admission to the UK or made a claim for asylum while they had a form of leave to remain. However, when an asylum claim has been determined and rejected, the main applicant is no longer eligible for support under the asylum support arrangements of the 1999 Act unless he or she is accompanied by dependants under the age of 18. As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam said, in some cases applicants may be unable to return immediately to their country of origin, because they may be suffering from illness or there is no safe route by which they can return, and in order to ensure that such people are not left destitute, basic support may be provided under section 4 of the 1999 Act. Section 4 support may also be provided in certain circumstances to former asylum seekers who have applied for judicial review of the asylum decision. However, the existing provision allows accommodation to be provided only to those who have been temporarily admitted to the UK or released from detention, and it does not cover all asylum seekers whose claims have been rejected.

Mr. Malins: Is a person whose asylum application has been rejected all the way down the line but who nevertheless seeks a judicial review classified as no longer an asylum seeker?

Ms Winterton: Such a person would be eligible for section 4 support but would be considered no longer eligible as an asylum seeker for overall NASS support. He or she would be eligible for section 4 support if the asylum decision were being judicially reviewed and that review or the case were judged as having some merit.

The existing provisions allow accommodation to be provided only to those who have been temporarily admitted to the UK or released from detention, and do not cover all asylum seekers whose claims have been rejected. The clause is intended to close that gap and allow the provision of support to all asylum seekers whose claims have been rejected, if the Secretary of State decides to provide accommodation in certain cases. However, we stress that support under section 4 is a last resort. It is not intended to replicate the provision of support under the asylum support scheme, but to meet the basic living needs—food and shelter—of unsuccessful asylum seekers who cannot immediately leave the country. The current arrangements achieve that for those eligible to benefit from it, and it is unnecessary to amend section 4 of the 1999 Act further in the way proposed.

We understand the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam. However, the Government consider amendment No. 261 to be unnecessary, as we are already working with interested parties through the national refugee integration forum to promote the resettlement and integration of successful asylum seekers into the community. The Home Office is also working with the Department for Work and Pensions to improve the arrangements for enabling successful asylum seekers to

Column Number: 215

transfer from central Government support to mainstream benefits, or to enter the labour market. The Home Office is also considering further written guidance on how successful asylum applicants can access mainstream services. I hope that I have reassured hon. Gentlemen, and that the amendment will be withdrawn.

 
Previous Contents Continue

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries ordering index


©Parliamentary copyright 2002
Prepared 14 May 2002