---

Benefits: Non-British Citizens

My Lords, we have heard two very powerful speeches. I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Judd, whose wisdom was demonstrated in his powerful, well argued 10-minute speech. I concur with everything that he said. The House is indebted to my noble friend for introducing this subject with his usual Welsh irrepressible enthusiasm. His Welsh is beginning to develop a Polish accent as he discusses these issues with these interest groups, which I agree are vital. All these people who look after the communities that they seek to serve deserve our thanks for the work that they do. I wish to comment on a focused issue relating to refused asylum seekers, as we are now seeing some of the fruits of the legislation that has been promoted over the past 10 years. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that this is a difficult area for any Government to handle. However, worrying signs are emerging that some aspects of the legislation are coming home to roost in a way that should be, and is, uncomfortable for us all. I do not want to repeat the quotations that have already been drawn from the invaluable report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Rather, I shall consider whether an entitlement to work and benefit provision acts as a magnet for abusive and potentially inept asylum claims. I was struck by the fact that the committee took no comfort from the claim of the then Home Office Minister, Mr Liam Byrne, that there was a real danger of a ““pull factor””—that is how it is known in the jargon—occurring if people were given the right to work and access to a continuous flow of benefit income. The committee stated, in what I think is the most powerful recommendation in the report: "““We recommend that in the development of asylum policy the Government should proceed on the basis of evidence, rather than assertion, which evidence should wherever possible be published””." I freely admit that I am not an expert on the technicalities of asylum, but looking at the Home Office’s own research and at my own experience in Scotland, where there is a slightly different perspective on some of this, I believe that promoting sensible levels of subsistence benefit on which people can have a chance of living over long periods does not act as a pull factor. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, made the important point that Section 4 support is meagre, but it is supposed to last only for a very limited period. However, some of these families live on Section 4 support for long periods. That was never the policy intention and it has consequences for people’s health, particularly children’s health, which the Government can no longer afford to ignore. We need to be clear about where the Government are getting their evidence from as regards denying access to work and Section 95 benefits over a longer period for fear of people abusing access to additional services. In Scotland, people have access to secondary health provision under Section 4, because the relevant orders are different. In Scotland, there is a much more integrated approach to the whole application process. When families, particularly those with children, make an application in Scotland, there is a much more involved process, which sometimes leads to a voluntary return when people are refused entry. Families proceed along a much smoother path and receive a lot of co-operation and support that is just not available in England; I believe that the same circumstances apply in Wales. The English provision needs to be looked at again. If we were able to provide more support, we would get a better outcome for everyone concerned, even for those who return voluntarily. The Government need to re-examine their claims with regard to the pull factor. A position statement from the Royal College of Psychiatrists, Improving Services for Refugees and Asylum Seekers, goes out of its way to say that the Government have done a huge amount in improving mental health services for the black and ethnic community. However, it says that there is absolutely no strategy for refugees and asylum seekers. The psychiatrists see incidents of mental illness now emerging. That is not surprising to anybody who knows the situation. The psychiatrists are now professionally concerned that mental illness is arising due to the socio-economic factors to which we subject refused asylum seekers. That matter needs to be addressed. I wish to make three suggestions focused on the background that I have just explained. First, we should consider allowing Section 95 cover to continue throughout any claim from beginning to conclusion, whether a voluntary or a forced return to a home country is involved. I shall explain why that is sensible financially in a moment. Secondly, I suggest that we should permit legal entry to work after 26 weeks. Measures with which the Minister and I are familiar such as welfare to work and the right to bid for contracts to get people off benefits and into work can work on a spend-to-save basis. If we could demonstrate that people on Section 95 support could trade themselves off benefit and support themselves for the duration of the rest of their claim, irrespective of whether there is a forced or a voluntary return, there would be an absolutely cast-iron cost-benefit analysis case to make for taking such an approach. Thirdly, I hope that the Minister and his department have considered the experience in Scotland, where an integrated partnership approach is taken. I have seen CoSLA reports dealing with forums that encourage people to return in a co-operative and supportive way. I believe that such an approach would improve the situation for returnees. In Glasgow, there is an assisted family return project. The case for taking out Section 4 and Section 9, as my noble friend mentioned, but particularly Section 4, is that Section 4 costs the public purse extra for a number of reasons. First, accommodation has to be found, which can be very expensive for local authorities. Secondly, the administration costs of the hated voucher scheme are a complete waste of money and an expense for nothing. The scheme forces people into misery; it is not effective and it does not work. Thirdly, the review of those entitled to Section 4 payments costs money. The review and appeal costs add to the totality of the present system’s costs. The caseworker resources tied up in the administration of Section 4 are a waste of money, particularly given the review of the 200,000 cases that the Home Office are looking at. Those resources are important. Finally, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, NHS support in England, where people are sent bills if they receive secondary care, costs money. My final point relates to supporting these changes and abolishing Section 4. The cost of removal on a voluntary basis, as we know from Home Office figures, amounts to £1,000 on average. The cost of a forced removal costs £11,000. Therefore, for every forced removal that we can avoid, we can save the public purse money, we can turn that resource into support for these families and we can get a much more satisfactory and sympathetic support system for refused asylum seekers. This argument will not go away and I hope that the Government will give it further consideration as a result of my noble friend’s debate.