UK Borders Bill

moved Amendment No. 32: 32: Clause 17, page 9, line 30, leave out subsections (1) to (6) and insert— ““(1) In section 94(1) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) (interpretation) for the definition of ““asylum-seeker”” substitute— ““““asylum-seeker”” means a person— (a) who is at least 18 years old, (b) who has made a claim for asylum at a place designated by the Secretary of State, (c) whose claim has been recorded by the Secretary of State, (d) who remains in the United Kingdom following the making of that claim for asylum, and (e) who is subject to immigration control but does not currently have leave to enter or remain;””. (2) In paragraph 17(1) of Schedule 3 to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (c. 41) (interpretation), for the definition of ““asylum-seeker”” substitute— ““““asylum-seeker”” means a person— (a) who is at least 18 years old, (b) who has made a claim for asylum at a place designated by the Secretary of State, (c) whose claim has been recorded by the Secretary of State, (d) who remains in the United Kingdom following the making of that claim for asylum, and (e) who is subject to immigration control but does not currently have leave to enter or remain,””. (3) The following provisions are repealed— (a) subsections (2) to (4) of section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999; (b) subsections (3) to (6), (8) and (9) of section 94 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999; (c) paragraphs 6, 7A and sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) of paragraph 17 of Schedule 3 to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002; and (d) section 9 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 (c. 19) (failed asylum seekers: withdrawal of support). (4) Paragraph 4(1)(e) of the National Health Service, (Charges to Overseas Visitors) (Amendments) Regulations 2004 (2004/614) is revoked.”” The right reverend Prelate said: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 32 which stands in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds. He very much regrets that he is unable to be present today and sends his apologies. I apologise for not being present at Second Reading. I welcome Clause 17 because it enables those with appeals in progress to claim support. The problem, of course, is that it does not go far enough. I support Amendment No. 32 because it provides us with an opportunity to end one of the most inhumane aspects of our present policy: the terrible destitution of refused asylum seekers. It is a destitution suffered by extraordinarily large numbers of vulnerable people. The latest figure I saw was 280,000, but I suspect no one knows how many people are destitute up and down this land today. If that figure is true, it is about the size of the population of the city of Newcastle, where I live. One of those 280,000 people—if it is 280,000—who lives in Newcastle is a woman called Milly. She is a 48 year-old from the Congo who arrived in this country in 2004. She was refused asylum despite her experiences of rape and detention in one of the most dangerous and volatile countries in Africa. Her case was eventually dismissed in February 2006; her accommodation was stopped and her £40 a week support was also stopped. She has been destitute ever since for about 18 months. Hardly surprisingly, she suffers from depression, and she constantly moves from place to place looking for somewhere to sleep. Her story is typical of so many whose applications have been refused and whose only option is to rely on churches, charities and voluntary groups for support. At one point last year, in the centre of Newcastle, we discovered that more than 300 people were living—““existing”” is a better way of putting it—without any means of support at all; no home, no food, no cash, nothing. That is frightening, and it is not surprising that the voluntary bodies, which provide a little—it is a little—by issuing the likes of food parcels and the occasional box of toiletries, are in danger of being overwhelmed. What have we come to, I wonder? First, the amendment seeks to provide the opportunity to end once and for all the destitution of refused asylum seekers by allowing them to have access to the financial and housing support that they desperately need. Secondly, it will ensure that they have access to secondary healthcare. On this latter point, the 2004 regulations, for example, deny someone treatment for cancer and force pregnant women to give birth alone, wherever they happen to be living or staying. That seems to be a shameful situation for any society that claims to be civilised. How many of us have sat down and talked to someone who has nothing—no money, no home, no family and no security—but is simply full of painful memories? When you sit and talk to someone in that situation, you cannot but change your view of what life is like in Britain today. Of course, I accept that there must be safe and sustainable means of return to the country of origin for those who have no protection needs. However, until that is achieved, surely there must be a basic right to a basic means of existence. The amendment provides that. I hope that it will receive the Minister’s support and that the Government will show a more caring and humane response and a more human face than is experienced by many, many people as a result of our present and harsh asylum system. I beg to move.