Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill [back to previous text]
Mr. Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow) (Lab): There is an issue about extending section 4 powers to local authorities, which is probably necessary given the number of people who are now supported through section 4. Before Report and Third Reading, I hope that the Minister might consider whether, in extending the powers to local authorities, he will also move away from the voucher-only support that we have now and that local authorities will presumably provide if the clause comes into force. It used to be that people who were supported under section 4 were given cash, or some cash, but cash support has now been completely withdrawn. There is no question but that that causes problems. I recently saw someone who is being supported under section 4, whose circumstances indicate that she is likely to be on such support for some time before there is any possibility of returning her to her country of origin. She is being issued with luncheon vouchers, and so can   Column Number: 234   buy food and drink, but it is virtually impossible for her to buy anything else with them. As with the previous voucher system, that situation generates a trade in which people sell their luncheon vouchers for a bit of cash to buy things that they cannot buy with the vouchers or to get on a bus to go somewhere. There is a real issue here, which I hope the Minister will consider. I know that there is a claim that the Home Office has had legal advice that cash cannot be provided, but the citizens advice bureau has had legal advice to the opposite effect. In extending the power to local authorities, which is probably necessary because of the number of people concerned, I hope that before we get to Report stage, the Minister will reconsider the provision of cash rather than voucher-only support. Mr. McNulty: Of course I will consider my hon. Friend’s point. I do not know if we can address the matter in the Bill, as it is more about practicalities than any point of statutory substance or import, but I am happy to consider it further. I shall not go down the road of debating section 4, and certainly not on the misinformed terms of the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon. Suffice it to say that we are talking about people whose every avenue has been entirely exhausted—people, including Iraqis, who have a voluntary return route. Hundreds have already returned, and hundreds are in the pool to do so. To suggest that they have no safe route back and are restricted to a twilight zone of section 4 is wrong. That is not the case at all. I shall not have that debate, however misinformed the hon. Gentleman is. I want to be nice, because the amendment— Dr. Harris: Will the Minister give way? Mr. McNulty: I just said that I shall not indulge in that debate, and I have not said anything else about the amendment, so I will not allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene because that would elongate the debate that I just said we will not have. We do not intend that the clause should do anything more than that which prevails under sections 95 and 98 of the 1999 Act, which allows a degree of reasonable expenditure for the preparation of proposals under what will be the new provision. That is entirely fair. In that spirit, if the amendment is withdrawn, I will happily consider it further to establish whether we need to clarify the issue of section 4 support, and the role of local authorities. There is a fair point under all the misinformed muddle of the other issue. Dr. Harris: I do not know whether to resent what the Minister says or be grateful—whether to laugh or cry. In the spirit of what he said about the amendment, I shall withdraw it. Clearly, it is not for any one member of the Committee to decide what we can debate; that is your remit, Sir Nicholas. I hope that in the clause stand part debate, the Minister will go out of his way—he may find that he is not really going out of his way—to clarify, briefly, what he believes to be the misunderstandings in this area. I wait to hear what he comes up with.   Column Number: 235   Mr. McNulty: With respect, Sir Nicholas, I shall not wait for the stand part debate, but will tell the hon. Gentleman now. The notion that section 4 cases concern those whom it is not possible to return, to use the hon. Gentleman’s phrase, is factually inaccurate in most cases under section 4—that is, those Iraqis from north Iraq. That is not the case. It is not a matter of debate but a matter of fact. 6 pm Dr. Harris: I accept that intervention, if that is what I am being asked to do, but shall return to the issue briefly in the clause stand part debate. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Mr. Gerrard: I beg to move amendment No. 105, in clause 37, page 21, line 44, at end insert— ‘(6)   Section 9 (Failed Asylum seekers: withdrawal of support) of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 (c.19) shall cease to have effect.’. The Chairman: With this we may discuss amendment No. 106, in schedule 3, page 30, line 24, at end add—
Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 (c. 19).	Section (9)’.

Mr. Gerrard: The amendment would repeal section 9 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004. I am concerned about the way in which the section operates.

Section 9 was introduced to withdraw support from asylum-seeking families with children who had reached the end of the process. They had reached the point at which their claim had been refused and appeals had been lost, but they were failing to leave the UK voluntarily. The section was clearly designed to put pressure on families to leave voluntarily. That was made absolutely clear in the short debate on section 9 at the time.

Section 9 is being implemented in three pilot areas. As I understand it, all National Asylum Support Service-supported families are being sent the first-stage letter under section 9 when their appeals process has been exhausted. The letter advises them that they will not continue to be supported by NASS and that they should make arrangements to leave the UK. That is as far as it goes for most families, however. It is only for families in the pilot areas where the second and subsequent stages of the process are pursued. Between 100 and 150 families have been taken through the pilot process so far.

Some of us were concerned when section 9 was debated that it would not have the effects that the Government intended it to have. Yes, it would make families destitute, but it would not encourage them to leave voluntarily, which was supposedly the argument for its introduction. We have seen from what is happening so far that our fears were justified. As far as I am aware, no families have returned voluntarily to their country of origin as a result of being subject to the
 
Column Number: 236
 
section 9 provisions. What has happened is that many of them have disappeared. They have moved from where they were living and are probably on somebody else’s floor somewhere. The Home Office will have lost touch with them; it will not even know where they are. That is exactly what one might expect from that type of provision.

The other area that is causing considerable concern is how the failure of families to return home voluntarily is having an impact on local authorities, and that concern extends to the British Association of Social Workers and the Association of Directors of Social Services. There is a real conflict between the requirements of section 9 and the requirements of the Children Act 1989, under which a positive duty is placed on local authorities to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in their area who are in need. Part of that duty is therefore to promote the upbringing of such children by their families, whereas section 9, when carried to its logical conclusion, means that the children will end up in care and the parents will end up with no support whatever from the local authority.

I understand that several local authorities in the Greater Manchester area, with the support of others from Yorkshire and London—the three pilot areas—have written to the Home Secretary asking for a review of the way in which the policy is operating before it is rolled out across the country. I hope that the Government will conduct such a review, and that they will make public the results of it and their evaluation of the way in which the pilots are operating. It strikes me that the policy is developing in a way that is doing no one any good whatever. It is certainly doing the families no good, and it is not achieving the voluntary returns that the Home Office wanted it to achieve.

I appreciate that the alternatives are probably quite unpleasant in some ways. If someone is refusing point blank to leave voluntarily and the Home Office does not operate section 9, that almost certainly means that their return must be enforced. No one likes the business of people knocking on a family’s door early in the morning and taking them into detention. However, I also appreciate that that must be done if it is absolutely necessary to remove someone who is simply refusing point blank to go when they have no right to remain in the country. Frankly, I would rather that that was done, unpleasant though it might be, than using destitution as a weapon to try to push people into returning.

I might think again if there is evidence that the policy is working and is actually leading to voluntary returns, but the evidence suggests that it is not. I hope that the Minister will tell us how he proposes to develop the use of section 9 and how he proposes to respond to what is coming back from the pilots.

Dr. Harris: I support what the hon. Gentleman says. What is the timetable for the planned roll-out of the policy beyond the pilot areas? Intrinsic to that, what assessment is being made of how it has worked so far? In particular, what outcome measures will be used generally to determine whether it has been a success? I ask that because, in addition to the points made by the
 
Column Number: 237
 
hon. Gentleman, there is also concern that the implementation of section 9 leads to some families disappearing and going underground in order, presumably, to work illicitly—or at least to find money illicitly—which cannot be a happy outcome.

Without repeating what the hon. Gentleman said, I want to put on record the Liberal Democrats’ support for his proposal.

Mr. McNulty: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) on his ingenuity in squeezing in a debate on section 9 in our debate on clause 37. It is certainly a topical matter. I thank him, too, for the way in which he introduced it. He is entirely right; these families have exhausted all rights of appeal and all legal status to be in this country. I have said time and time again as an Immigration Minister that I would far rather reach the point at which there was never an enforced return and that people returned voluntarily when they reached the end of the line.

We could argue the point about who is enforcing what on whom, but I suggest that by not co-operating on the voluntary return, and therefore maintaining support until such a return, the family put themselves in that position. If there is any fault, it is theirs. However, there are concerns about the interplay with the Children Act 1989 and about a range of other matters. That is why we have made it clear that there will be a full review and evaluation of the current position before any attempt is made to implement section 9 on a national basis.

For completeness, I think that in the pilot areas support has been withdrawn in 38 or 39 individual cases. My hon. Friend is entirely right; no one has returned yet on a voluntary basis, but in 15 cases the paperwork is being processed with a view to return. The thing is in the balance, and I happily give the Committee an undertaking that the review and assessment will take place before any roll-out—or implementation, for those who prefer English to strangled American managerialese.

I understand the concerns. My hon. Friend is right that colleagues in the north-west have written to me to explore the matter further. As for the evaluations starting in the next couple of weeks, some cases at least had to go through the relevant process before there could be any attempt to evaluate the efficacy or otherwise of the clause, but that will happen.

I have tried to ensure, too, that not only the Home Office and NASS, but also the Department for Education and Skills—given the concerns about the 1989 Act—will be involved in the evaluation process. I shall make the results of the evaluation process, or at least the headline figures, as public as I can so that there will be time for debate before we move on to national implementation of section 9.

I can say without pre-empting the outcome of the valuation at all—not being interested in courting controversy for the sake of it—that if section 9 works and achieves what we want post-evaluation we may well go in that direction. I am not interested in what is apparently a hard-edged, nasty bogeyman measure that does not achieve what we want. I shall view the
 
Column Number: 238
 
evaluation in that context. I heartily congratulate my hon. Friend on his ingenuity in obtaining a debate on that, and gently ask him to withdraw the amendment and await the outcome of the evaluation.

Mr. Gerrard: I thank the Minister for his point about ingenuity. However, my amendment was clearly in order or you would not have selected it, Sir Nicholas, and I think he is pushing the point a little far.

Mr. McNulty: With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, I never suggested that it was out of order. I think that he should take the compliment and move on.

Mr. Gerrard: Very well. I thank the Minister for what he said about evaluation. It is important that before such a measure is pushed out the pilot process is properly evaluated. That should be as public as possible, and I also thank him for what he said about that.

I do not want to press the amendment to a vote, but I hope that we will return to the matter when the results of the evaluation of the pilots are available. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Dr. Harris: I have three questions for the Minister. First, does he intend that under clause 37 local authorities should provide full board, or does he intend them to provide vouchers for food, with the problems that we heard about earlier in finding money for transport for signing on or other purposes, or for essentials such as sanitary provisions? Or is it intended that there should be a choice? Do the Government have a view?

6.15 pm

Secondly, on the question of whether the people subject to section 4 were unable to return, if I have the wrong perception about the generality of cases or individual cases, I am not the only one. The Library briefing talks about

“destitute failed asylum seekers who are prevented from returning home are in some cases eligible for accommodation under section 4”.

Indeed, the Refugee Council, which the Minister might arguably expect to get it wrong, believes that this refers to

“asylum seekers whose claims have been rejected but who are unable to return to their country of origin.”

Clearly some could, but do not. If one looks at the countries of origin of successful applicants, such as Eritrea, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Somalia, there will be cases where people are not able to return and yet they face these difficulties.

Thirdly, what will happen in relation to hard case support for people from Zimbabwe? In a recent case, the tribunal argued that they should not and could not be returned home. They will therefore be in the position that we are talking about where the clause impacts. Although the Minister felt that his change of
 
Column Number: 239
 
policy and the subsequent appeal against that drove a coach and horses through asylum control, we are nevertheless dealing with people who are in this position. Does he imagine the clause will apply to that group of people? I should be grateful if he could answer those three questions.

Mr. McNulty: With the best will in the world, I shall not, because the clause relates to the powers enabling local authorities to provide section 4 accommodation. Try as I may, I cannot see how any of those three questions are germane to the clause. It is not for the hon. Gentleman to put motivations in my head or words in my mouth about what value I put on documents from the Refugee Council. I know and respect that organisation and I thank him not to cast aspersions on my behalf about what my view is of the quality of its briefing.

The hon. Gentleman asks what clause 37 is about. It is about affording powers to local authorities, not available up to now in terms of section 4 accommodation. That is all that it is about, and not the other matters—certainly not Zimbabwe—and everything else that he is asking me to discuss under the clause. I shall resist that.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 137 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 38

Integration loans

Andy Burnham: I beg to move amendment No. 61, in clause 38, page 22, leave out from beginning of line 2 to second ‘for’ in line 3 and insert—

‘(1)   Section 13 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 (c. 19) (integration loan for refugees) shall be amended as follows.

(2)   In subsection (1) for “to refugees.” substitute “—

(a)   to refugees, and

(b)   to such other classes of person, or to persons other than refugees in such circumstances, as the regulations may prescribe.”

(3)   In subsection (2)(b)’.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 62.

Andy Burnham: The amendment will enable the Government to extend eligibility for integration loans to other categories of migrants. As such, I hope that it would be broadly welcomed by the Committee. As currently defined, eligibility for an integration loan extends only to those who have been granted full refugee status. We believe that the legislation should be sufficiently flexible to allow for the inclusion of further categories in future. For example, those granted humanitarian protection under article 3 of the European convention are subject to many of the same policies as those granted refugee status. We believe that there may be a strong case for affording that group of people the same treatment in this regard too.

 
Column Number: 240
 

As currently drafted, the legislation would not enable us to provide an integration loan to some beneficiaries of the gateway protection programme. It is a resettlement programme whereby refugees have so far been resettled in parts of Bolton and Sheffield. We are talking here about those who have gone through the most traumatic and difficult experiences. We certainly want them to be able to begin their new lives in this country with the most support we could give them. That is why the Bill seeks to extend our flexibility to provide that support more widely to people under that programme.

People under the gateway programme are instead given indefinite leave to remain outside the immigration rules. We are suggesting in the amendments that there is considerable merit in ensuring consistency of treatment. Such categories, as is often the case with immigration law, are defined by policy rather than legislation, and are therefore not apt for inclusion in primary legislation. That is why the two categories that I have just mentioned are not mentioned specifically in the amendment before us.

We are seeking to make provision to extend eligibility to an integration loan by order, parliamentary approval for which will be by affirmative resolution. I hope that members of the Committee will feel that the amendments are to be welcomed. They extend support to people who are trying to create a new life in this country, and who need our support and our warmth at a time when they are most isolated. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 62, in clause 38, page 22, line 5, at end insert—

‘(4)   In subsection (3)(a)(iii) after “as a refugee” insert “or since some other event)”.

(5)   In subsection (3)(h) for “refugee” substitute “person”.

(6)   The heading to the section becomes “Integration loans for refugees and others”.’.—[Andy Burnham.]

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

Dr. Harris: This is a small point, but it relates to the substantive matter of clause 38, which is to change the term “indefinite leave to remain” to

“granted him leave to enter or remain”,

for some of the reasons that the Minister has already explained. It relates to the Government’s decision to provide for refugees, who are to be given in the first instance only five years’ leave and then a review. Does the Minister foresee any opportunity for the House of Commons to debate that policy change on a substantive motion? Clearly it is not appropriate to vote on it on a clause stand part debate, but it is a significant alteration to previous Government policy and does not, as I understand it, require primary legislation per se. However, it is important because it affects how long people feel able to be settled here, whether they can be settled here, or whether there is a sword of Damocles hanging over their heads. Moving from the indefinite to the specific, in this and other
 
Column Number: 241
 
areas, has implications. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell us whether he foresees an opportunity for us to debate and vote on that at another time, if not now.

Edward Miliband (Doncaster, North) (Lab): Given the Committee’s wish to get on, could the Minister, following on from the point made by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon, take the opportunity to say something about the definition of refugee status that is implicit in the clause? In particular, can he comment on the notion that if conditions in the country of origin improve significantly, it is reasonable to expect people to return?

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has said that

“the change which has taken place in the country must be fundamental—not a mere transitory change in the facts surrounding the individual refugee’s fear.”

Can the Minister reassure refugees and their representatives that he agrees with that definition, and that countries’ circumstances must be fundamental? Furthermore, can he reassure us that the power to declare that circumstances have changed will be used only in exceptional cases, such as where there has been a temporary upheaval that has caused a mass movement of individuals? That must be an exceptional power, and it must not be envisaged that it will be used generally.

I witnessed a debate to which the Minister responded and in which my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow spoke on 10 October. The Minister said:

“I anticipate that declarations that country conditions have changed will be used sparingly.”—[Official Report, 10 October 2005; Vol. 437, c. 134.]

I should be grateful if he would take this opportunity briefly to expand on that.

Andy Burnham: Some valid points have been made, and I seek to respond to them all. First, let me pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon. There was an opportunity to discuss these matters during a debate in the House called by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, which was attended by one of his Front-Bench colleagues. It was a very good debate, and extremely well attended for an Adjournment debate. The matter at issue was part of the Government’s five-year strategy announced earlier this year. It was also part of my party’s election manifesto, so there has already been a significant opportunity to consider the change.

The clause amends the definition of a refugee for the purpose of providing access to an integration loan, so that it refers to a person whom the Secretary of State has recognised as a refugee, and who has been given leave, rather than indefinite leave, to enter or remain in the UK. Thus the clause brings the provision of integration loans into line with the new policy of granting refugees five years’ limited leave to remain in the first instance.

In response to some of the points that have been made, it is important to say that this provision is entirely in keeping with the principles of the 1951
 
Column Number: 242
 
refugee convention. I would refer the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon to that document, because it enshrines the principle that leave does not have to be indefinite or permanent; people are afforded protection by a country for as long as they need that protection. This change to five years’ limited leave is entirely in keeping with the principles of the convention, and it brings our policy into line with that operated by many other European countries.

Dr. Harris: I fully accept that, and I want to ask whether the Minister thinks that it will represent a substantial change in practice. After five years, will not many asylum seekers have developed roots in this country, making their removal, even if their refugee status is taken away, difficult on human rights grounds? Is it likely that people will go back in such circumstances, or is he merely making the point that we need go no further, as he rightly says, than fulfilling our obligations under the 1951 convention?

---

Prepared 26 October 2005