UK Borders Bill

I appreciate that, but I am addressing the whole group and the issue has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts. He is entitled to an answer. There are, however, exceptions, and support will be available if one of these exceptions applies, such as support being necessary in order to avoid a breach of a person’s rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. Section 9 is not designed to make families destitute or to split them up but to influence behaviour so that people co-operate and to incentivise voluntary return before removal is enforced. My honourable friend the Minister of State, Liam Byrne, recently published the evaluation report on the Section 9 pilot. That report makes it clear that based on the results of the pilot, as the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, said, we do not think that Section 9 is suitable for use on a routine basis. However, we cannot agree to the repeal of Section 9. We think it is important to retain a provision to withdraw support from families who refuse to co-operate with removal. In any case, where a case owner considers that it may be appropriate to use Section 9, a case conference approach involving local stakeholders, such as the local authority, will be followed. Since the pilot was undertaken, the approach to dealing with asylum applications by the Border and Immigration Agency has undergone a significant transformation. The new approach offers a more credible and sustainable end-to-end system. Specialist case owners are now responsible for managing the claimants and their cases through the whole system to either removal or integration as refugees. There is a strong focus on ensuring that early steps are taken so that those whose claims are not successful leave the United Kingdom in a timely manner. Those who have been refused asylum have no basis to remain in the UK. It cannot be right to give false hope to individuals that they will be able to stay here after their asylum claim is determined. It is particularly important that families should not give false expectations to children. We think that it is important to make it clear that those refused asylum cannot expect to receive support indefinitely. We therefore think it important to retain an ability to withdraw support from families who wilfully refuse to co-operate. In such cases, the case owner will take a view on which approach to encouraging departure is most likely to be effective. Case-specific close working with appropriate officials from the local authority will normally be required if the use of the Section 9 provision is being considered. Repeal of Section 9 would also have the effect of giving a right of appeal to the asylum support tribunal where asylum support was refused or withdrawn because of the operation of Schedule 3 to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Schedule 3 is an important measure to discourage benefit-shopping and prevents support to those within specified classes, except to the extent necessary to prevent a breach of their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights or Community treaties. This exception already provides an important safeguard in the operation of Schedule 3. Section 9 and Schedule 3 are important parts of our work to preserve the integrity of the asylum system, and the amendments would not help us to achieve our objectives. Finally, I should address the question of access to healthcare—an issue that has arisen on a number of occasions during our deliberations. The right reverend Prelate’s amendment seeks to change the current entitlement to free secondary healthcare for those who have been unsuccessful in their asylum claims. As announced in our strategy to enforce compliance with our immigration laws, published in March this year, we intend to shut down inappropriate access to services that are privileges intended for people who are in the UK legitimately. At its simplest, this is an issue of fairness. In relation to healthcare, we shall review the rules governing access to the NHS by foreign nationals. We will work with the Department of Health to ensure that the implementation of new rules flowing from the review is accompanied by a programme of communication and good practice for those who apply the rules, including practice staff, GPs and trusts. Given that review, it would be inappropriate to make any changes at present. However, I reiterate to noble Lords that the basic humanitarian needs of failed asylum seekers in relation to access to healthcare are already met. They receive free treatment in accident and emergency departments and for many infectious diseases such as TB. For other life-threatening conditions and for the purpose of preventing any conditions from becoming life-threatening, they will receive appropriate treatment, regardless of their ability to pay. Treatment will not be withheld or delayed. Charging issues will be sorted out subsequently. Therefore, care will be available at the point at which it is most needed and it will be free. Issues of charging will come later. I remind the Committee that trusts also have discretion to write off any debts accrued when it would not be reasonable or cost-effective to pursue them. I think that I have covered all the issues raised in the debate. I know that the right reverend Prelate will be disappointed by my response but we need to retain the integrity of our system, and we think that the asylum support system works to achieve that end.