|
Extract
from House of Commons Hansard, Debates for 1st March 2004
Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants,
etc.) Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Mr.
Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow):
I support amendment No. 23, but I want to concentrate
on amendment No. 33 and new clause 1, which bear my name and those of,
among others, my hon. Friends the Members for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr.
Coleman) and for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck).
New clause 1 would repeal section 55 of the 2002 Act. Members
who were present for the debate on that Bill will recall that we had only about
15 minutes in which to discuss the introduction of that provision. It appears we
shall have rather less time on this occasion to debate a section that has left
thousands destitute, on the streets with no support. When it came into effect,
we were given numerous assurances. We were told that it was intended to deal
with people who had entered the country, worked illegally and eventually claimed
asylum, or people whose entry visas had expired and who had then claimed
asylum—in other words, people who had been in the country for substantial
periods. We were told that a reasonable amount of time would have to elapse
before someone was refused support on the basis that a claim had been made late.
We have seen what has actually happened. People have been
refused support, in some cases after being in the country only a matter of
hours. There have certainly been many cases of people being refused support when
they have been in the country for just a few days. People have had to sleep
rough on the streets or survive on the generosity of others in refugee
communities who do not themselves have many resources to offer.
Ms Karen Buck (Regent's Park and Kensington, North):
Is my hon. Friend aware of the Refugee Council survey of people left destitute
under section 55? It found that 61 per cent. of such people were sleeping rough;
70 per cent. did not have regular food; and more than half had suffered serious
health consequences as a result of being destitute.
Mr. Gerrard: Yes, I have seen
that survey, and one carried out by the Greater London authority. A similar
picture has emerged from every survey that has been conducted.
The other problem is the clogging up of the courts. We were
told that, in October last year, about 60 challenges a week were going to the
administrative courts, and the judges started to complain bitterly that it was
clogging up the system and preventing other business from being dealt with.
I am astonished by the latest development. In the past few
days the Home Office has sent a letter in which it says that unaccompanied
asylum seeking children, who might have lived here for some time, will be the
subject of section 55 interviews on their 18th birthday—their 18th birthday
present might be to lose all benefits and support. The child might even have
been in care, so we need to reflect on our duties to children when they leave
care. That letter was sent, despite the Home Affairs Committee report that was
issued a week or so ago, which criticised what was happening, highlighted
serious concerns and urged the Government to review the operation of section 55.
Mr. Dawson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for
bringing that appalling matter to the House's attention. Any reasonable person
reflecting on the issue will view it as an attempt wholly to undermine the
Hillingdon judgment, which stated that young asylum seekers who had received
benefits under section 17 of the Children Act 1989 would, on attaining
adulthood, be eligible for support under the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000.
Mr. Gerrard: There are some
interesting connections with that judgment. The measures in the letter will
apply to children leaving care whose asylum claims have not been decided, rather
than those who have been in care and have been given permission to stay.
Finally—I shall be brief because I know other hon. Members
want to speak—we should think again about the reasons that people make late
asylum claims. I can think of a whole string of reasons. People might have been
trafficked or brought in by agents and told to behave in a certain way. Some
people might have suffered trauma and understandably do not feel confident about
making a claim the moment they step inside the country.
From debates in Committee we know that the Government take
the view that people who make late claims make weak claims. The Minister for
Citizenship and Immigration expressed her view of section 55:
"We wanted to
bring about a change of behaviour on the reasonable assumption that somebody
fleeing persecution, or in fear of his life, would want to claim asylum in the
safe country in which he had arrived as soon as possible."—[Official Report,
Standing Committee B, 27 January 2004; c. 430.]
Again, the implication is that
someone who claims in-country is making a weak claim. We have had this debate
during every asylum Bill since 1996, and the Home Office's own statistics show
that the rate of recognition of asylum claims made within the country for year
after year is hardly different from—and in some years exceeds—the rate of
recognition for people who apply at port.
What is fundamentally wrong with section 55 is that, like
some earlier measures such as vouchers, it penalises the genuine claimant. It
was supposed to deter the abusive claimant, but in effect it penalises the
genuine claimant. That is why section 55 is so absolutely immoral.
I hope that it might be possible at an appropriate point
during this evening's proceedings for a separate Division to be called on new
clause 1 or amendment No. 33, which I hope will have the House's support.
|
