---

Immigration (Registration Card) Order 2008

My Lords, I am feeling quite nostalgic for the many hours that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and I have spent arguing with each other across the Floor of this House and the Moses Room on primary legislation. Although this order is not in quite the same league as most of the matters we have discussed, there are nevertheless one or two points on which, like the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, I would be grateful for some clarification. Section 26A of the 1971 Act deals with the registration card issued in connection with a claim for asylum, but subsection (7) also provides that the definition of the card, and hence the purposes for which it can be used, can be amended by order. The Explanatory Memorandum says that this is the first time that that power has been used. The first question—it may be fairly obvious, but I would be grateful for confirmation—is whether the same card is to be used for both purposes now defined in the amended subsection 1(b). As I read it, there could be two separate registration cards: one to be used in connection with the claim for asylum, and the other in connection with a claim for Section 4 support. Presumably an individual will be given only one card, whether she is an asylum claimant, a claimant for Section 4 support, or both. Can the Minister confirm that? As the Explanatory Memorandum says, destitute asylum seekers, their dependants and most unsuccessful asylum seekers with dependent children under 18 are eligible for support under Section 95 of the 1999 Act. They are all issued with an ARC under the existing Section 26A. Those who apply for accommodation under Section 4 of that Act—mainly people who have exhausted their claim to asylum but cannot be returned to their country of origin for the time being—may not have an ARC, as the Minister explained, because their asylum application predated the 1999 Act, because the card was withdrawn because support was no longer required, because there was a potential for misuse, or because the holder had lost the card. It is estimated that 9,500 persons, not counting dependants, were getting Section 4 support in September 2007 and, of those, perhaps 500 currently have no ARC. The BIA could issue ARCs to these 500 persons administratively, but the order is needed to activate the criminal offences in Section 26A(3) relating to fraudulent production and use of an ARC in connection with a claim for Section 4 support. The Minister will no doubt say whether there is any reason to think that individuals have in fact been forging ARCs to get Section 4 support, or whether he can imagine situations where somebody who is not entitled to Section 4 support would go to the lengths of forging an ARC to access the very minimal assistance it provides. As an aside, where an ARC has been withdrawn because of potential misuse, are those individuals nevertheless now to be issued with a new ARC, irrespective of whether potential misuse is suspected? The people who qualify are in desperate need, and Refugee Action published an assessment in January this year of the problems they encountered. It found that between September and December 2007 its ““One Stop Service”” offices in the south-west, south central, north-west and east Midlands had 3,612 visits from asylum seekers who were looking for Section 4 support, and of those, 1,350 were assessed as being destitute. The number of people eligible for Section 4 support increased dramatically in the early months of 2005 from 500 to 5,000, and now, according to the Explanatory Memorandum, it has almost doubled again. May we have an analysis from the Minister of the reasons for this increase, and how far it is accounted for by failed asylum seekers who cannot be sent back to their countries of origin? The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, mentioned the number of failed applicants. Could the Minister give us a breakdown of the numbers by country and in each case a summary of the reasons why those persons cannot be returned? According to the Public Accounts Committee in another place, there could be as many as 283,500 failed applicants in the UK, though most of them presumably would be returnable if the BIA could identify them and they had not put down roots which made it unreasonable for them to be returned. The National Audit Office estimated that it would cost £3.2 billion to remove these people, who mostly fled violent situations such as those in Zimbabwe, the DRC or Somalia, even though an immigration judge found that they did not meet the strict criteria of the 1951 convention. In practice it may be extremely difficult to remove people to countries where the Government are uncooperative or there is an internal conflict. Only five people were compulsorily sent back to Somalia in 2005, for instance, and presumably—perhaps the Minister will confirm this—nobody is being sent back to Zimbabwe when the country is on the verge of an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe. While we have to give minimal support under Section 4 to a few thousand people in situations of this kind, there should be a systematic review periodically of the likelihood of ever being able to return them, and where the odds are against it, to give those people indefinite leave to remain so that the taxpayer can be relieved of the burden of supporting them and they can start contributing to the economy. Otherwise the taxpayer is saddled indefinitely with the steadily increasing numbers of beneficiaries. It would be good if the Minister could tell us what the latest figure is, perhaps at March 2008, to see what the rate of increase is since the figure of 9,500 given in the Explanatory Memorandum. Whatever the figure is, there seems to be a deliberate policy of slowing down both the consideration of applications and the award of Section 4 support once it has been decided that a person is eligible We do not agree with the policy of forcing failed asylum seekers into destitution, but if the Government persist with that policy, they should at least ensure that the victims get the support to which they are legally entitled. The Refugee Action study to which I referred a moment ago showed that despite increased BIA staff, the average time taken to decide priority A applications—that is, from people who were street homeless, pregnant or suffering from physical or mental health problems—increased from 8.5 days in September 2006 to 9.6 days in July 2007. The average time for priority A cases to be accommodated increased over the same interval from 12 days to more than 20 days. In a judicial review application which was dismissed last December because the applicant had been accommodated before the hearing, the judge nevertheless said: "““It is incumbent on the Secretary of State to put in place a system which deals specifically with the problem””" of delay. The judge continued: "““The Secretary of State, through her officials, must act properly and promptly. It is the duty of Government to ensure that happens””." What has the Secretary of State done to comply with that judgment, and will the Minister now request a weekly return from the BIA, to be placed in the Library, so that your Lordships can see what progress is being made?