UK Borders Bill

I understand that entirely. I want to set out the intention behind Clause 17. The clause is a technical amendment that amends the definition of an asylum seeker to ensure that an asylum seeker and his dependants will continue to be eligible for support as an asylum seeker or dependants of an asylum seeker until the end of the immigration appeals process. That is what currently happens, and was always the intention. It is relevant where an asylum application has been refused by the Secretary of State but the asylum applicant can bring an in-country appeal or has lodged an in-country appeal with the appropriate authorities and that appeal has not yet been determined. It was always the intention of the legislation that a destitute asylum seeker would continue to be eligible for support until he or she had the opportunity to have an appeal heard by an independent tribunal. However, recent litigation interpreted the existing provision in such a way that destitute asylum seekers may cease to be eligible for support as soon as the Secretary of State served a refusal of asylum. The litigation remains the subject of an appeal, but we consider it only right to take this early opportunity to clarify the statutory provisions to make it quite clear that, so long as they meet the relevant criteria that they are destitute, asylum seekers continue to be eligible for support until the point when any in-country appeal has been determined. Noble Lords welcomed what we put in the Bill, so far as it went. However, the proposed amendments seek to do something rather different. Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 would maintain asylum support potentially indefinitely for those who have made a claim, who have had that claim and any appeal rejected and who choose not to leave the UK. The motivation behind the amendments is understandable—a wish not to see people living in destitution—but the fact is that these people do not have to be destitute. They can choose to go home, a home to which it has been found it is safe for them to return. Support is available under Section 4 of the 1999 Act for those who are taking all reasonable steps to return home, while that return is being arranged. It is also available where there is some temporary barrier to returning. Those making a voluntary return are also eligible to receive the world-leading reintegration assistance provided by the International Organisation for Migration on behalf of the Home Office. It is not right that UK taxpayers should be asked to fund, potentially indefinitely, those who have been unwilling to make a voluntary return. We must maintain the integrity of our system. We have a long and proud tradition of granting asylum and protection to those fleeing persecution and torture, but that tradition must not be exploited. To support indefinitely those who have been found not to need our protection would be to undermine the purpose of protecting the UK’s borders and would undermine our efforts to ensure that those with no right to be in the UK make arrangements to leave. Amendment No. 33 also seeks the repeal of Section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and Section 9 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004. Both those measures play an important part in encouraging compliance with our immigration system. Section 55 prevents the provision of asylum support to asylum claimants who do not make their asylum claim as soon as reasonably practicable after their arrival in the UK. The sooner an asylum claim is made, the more likely that factual information can be obtained and verified to inform the asylum decision processes. There are a number of safeguards in Section 55 to protect the vulnerable. Children and their families are excluded from its provisions, and it would not prevent the provision of support if it would be a breach of human rights not to provide it. Support is not refused under Section 55 to any person who does not have alternative support available, including overnight shelter, adequate food and basic amenities. Amendment No. 33 further seeks to restrict the use of vouchers to provide for those who are receiving support under Section 4. It is important to make it clear that failed asylum seekers cannot be expected to receive support on the same basis as those still in the asylum process. Section 4 support is intended as a limited and temporary form of support. The vouchers provided for the purchase of food and essential toiletries are ordinary high street vouchers which are also available to the public at large. They do not in any way mark the user as a failed asylum seeker. We acknowledge that there are some needs which cannot be met within the existing Section 4 regime. We will shortly commence a consultation on draft regulations to meet specified services and facilities, which will enable us to give additional support to the most vulnerable receiving Section 4 support, including pregnant women and mothers with children. What we cannot agree to do is to extinguish the distinction between those still awaiting a final decision on their asylum claims and those who have been found not to need our protection. To do so would undermine the integrity of the system by sending out mixed messages to those expected to leave. I turn now to Section 9, which all the proposed amendments seek to repeal. Section 9 provides, among other things, for the withdrawal of support from an individual and his family whose claim for asylum has been refused and who the Secretary of State certifies has, in his opinion, failed without reasonable excuse to take reasonable steps to leave the UK voluntarily.