UK Borders Bill

moved Amendment No. 14: 14: Clause 17, page 10, line 36, 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 (3) The following provisions are repealed— (a) subsections (2) to (4) of section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999; (b) subsections (3) to (6), (8) and (9) of section 94 of the Immigration and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).”” The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I seek to persuade noble Lords of the immense benefit that the Bill could provide for all those involved in the asylum system, were Clause 17 to be extended in its scope. We come to the issue of destitution, which is dealt with also by Amendments Nos. 15 and 17. I welcome the proposals in the clause providing for support during the period of appeal for an asylum seeker, but much more needs to be done. The amendment would fulfil the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Human Rights in paragraph 1.36 of its report of 14 May to provide support for all recorded and detailed asylum seekers who have not yet been removed. If we were to go down this line, it would at a stroke remove much of the scandal of destitution which so mars this area of concern. We are grateful to the Refugee Council and the Still Human Still Here coalition of groups and bodies for their persistence in seeking to persuade us to move in this direction. Whatever their views more generally on immigration and asylum issues, few believe that destitution is an appropriate way to deal with anyone in a civilised society, yet that is the result of our present system, which is why it cannot be described as robust but fair. People in Leeds speak to me of the increasing number of rough sleepers among asylum seekers, who add to the homeless pressure at places such as St George’s Crypt in Leeds and rely on food parcels from organisations such as Positive Action for Refugees and Asylum Seekers and a host of small organisations which have developed in our cities to provide basic necessities for people. I worked in the South Yorkshire coalfields during the miners’ strike and saw the damaging effect of denying families and individuals basic—not generous—support, and I now find that replicated on the streets and in the communities of Leeds. This amendment does not dispute in any way the right of Government to control their borders nor the right of Government to return those without protection needs, but it disputes any moral right to use destitution, deliberately or not, as a way to influence and force people to leave or to disappear. That takes us to the next issue. The present system is highly ineffective. We simply lose track of people altogether. They disappear into a twilight world, sleeping on the floors of family members or of friends. Their children no longer go to school and therefore are deprived of the benefits which they ought to have. To provide basic healthcare and benefits would establish a far more orderly, effective and humane asylum system. Amnesty International’s report, Down and Out in London, strongly suggests that this would lead to an increase in those enabled to return to their home countries because there would be so much more clarity about where those people were. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation recently published its report on destitution in Leeds, Moving On—From Destitution to Contribution. Kate Adie, who chaired the inquiry, Courtenay Griffiths QC, Sayeeda Warsi and their colleagues advocated an end to destitution and the establishment of a right to work for refused asylum seekers. This last point is dealt with in Amendment No. 18. Kate Adie and her colleagues speak of the erosion of human dignity and the will to survive. They quote a senior nurse saying: "““It compromises the very ethics of the NHS to refuse care””." They quote an asylum seeker saying: "““At night I can’t sleep. I see my life in danger ... I do not have any feeling in my body. When I see the past I see death. When I see the present I see no hope. If I kill myself everything will finish””." That is the situation which faces an increasing number of people in our society and our cities and which we have it in our power to deal with. Speaking to some of the Rowntree team, I was struck by the effect that their research was having on them. Any amount of statistical information cannot make up for the actual damage being done— psychologically, sometimes physically, and in mental health—to people in Leeds and in many other cities in this country. This needs a cross-party solution, for no one can believe that the present situation is tolerable. It is true that Section 4 hard case provision in theory exists. It is difficult to access, and only a tiny minority of asylum seekers ever achieve it. Most of them do not know about it. It would be far more straightforward and effective to continue Section 95 provision to keep people in the system. Adie’s report comments: "““Whatever the theoretical justice of the Section 4 system, it has demonstrably failed to do what it was intended to do””." Adie and her colleagues speak of three principles, and those are also taken up in the Joint Committee report. First, there is the need for the asylum process to keep people in the system and not drive them out of it. Secondly, there is the need for asylum seekers to contribute to host communities wherever possible, rather than being a burden on them, which is why the report advocates jobseeking and taxpaying by asylum seekers. Thirdly, there is the need to ensure that all asylum seekers have the basic necessities of life, which is, I submit, a requirement of any part of the legislation of any society. The amendment would provide the first and the third of those principles. Adie pleads that, "““political leaders have the courage to acknowledge this and act accordingly””." The amendment gives us the opportunity to do exactly that. I beg to move.