HL Deb 02 March 1993 vol 543 cc592-601

The Secretary of State shall make a specific grant to any local authority which in any year incurs expenditure in making housing, social services or education provision for asylum-seekers or their dependants.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 15. I am not prepared to accept the suggested grouping which includes Amendment No. 16. It is a different point and I ask for it to be debated separately.

Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 are similar to those moved in Committee by my noble friend Lord Jenkin. I am bringing them back because since the Committee stage my noble friend, who unfortunately cannot be present today, arranged a meeting with the Department of the Environment at which I was present with officers of the London Boroughs Association and the Association of London Authorities. We met my noble friend the Minister and Robin Squire.

The meeting was to discuss the cost of refugees and asylum seekers. It was an interesting and informative meeting. Some matters emerged which meant that we were not achieving a satisfactory result. The Minister admitted that homelessness is not at present covered by the SSA. He also said that the Government might be willing to take it into consideration if they could properly define an index by which it could be assessed more accurately. We stressed that we considered asylum-seeking homelessness to be different from ordinary homelessness. Needs are assessed, but homelessness on its own is not assessed. Homelessness for asylum seekers was a different category.

There is a changing pattern in London. The boroughs which are suffering the most this year may not be those which suffered last year or which will suffer next year. Last year Westminster's housing costs for asylum seekers were £1.3 million. However, this year the London Borough of Ealing is the most adversely affected.

It should be appreciated that the burden of homelessness falls unfairly on London. I was interested in the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, when speaking to Amendment No. 13. He said that there should be a national system for sharing the responsibility of homelessness, in particular for those homeless people who are seeking asylum. If it is the case that the London boroughs are carrying the burden and not boroughs nationwide, there should be a special grant for them. There should be a special grant for those boroughs which are carrying the burden at the time. That is a fair way of supporting homelessness at a national level because some boroughs would not contribute if asylum seekers were not in their area.

The Minister said that he hoped to speed up the process of deciding whether people should be granted leave of asylum or merely leave to remain. That is necessary because the average period of time for that process is two-and-a-half years. The boroughs which accept people in the first instance, and provide what the Minister has pointed out will be only temporary accommodation, will be providing that for two-and-a-half years. The Minister also pointed out that often the temporary accommodation is of a high standard.

That may be so but it is certainly the most expensive standard. The costs are out of all proportion to that spent by many boroughs on other people. We have long been dissatisfied with bed-and-breakfast as a form of accommodation, and we remain so.

The burden will not be reduced, however, as a result of the change to providing accommodation on only a temporary basis. We are being misled by the Bill into believing that there will be a reduction. The temporary accommodation will remain just as expensive. At present the number of people who are given leave to remain is four times greater than the number of those who are given asylum. Yet those who are given leave to remain will, until they are moved, stay in the same temporary accommodation as the asylum seekers. The notion that the numbers will suddenly reduce dramatically is not correct.

When discussing Amendment No. 12 a great deal was said about who would be responsible for housing. The view of the London boroughs is that any borough which has accepted a person as an asylum seeker and offered temporary accommodation will pick up the tab and the later responsibility for providing permanent accommodation if that person qualifies. I was slightly confused about the issue but I did not wish to intervene in the debate because the amendment was not in my name. However, the London boroughs believe that there is no way in which the receiving borough will be able to shed that responsibility to others.

The London Borough of Westminster believes that it is most important for boroughs to be able to provide permanent accommodation in a different borough because there may not be enough space for the numbers who want it. Westminster has found 277 permanent homes in its borough but more than 1,500 homeless people have been put into Westminster by other boroughs. There is a two-way arrangement but if that is restricted the chances of rehousing people will be much reduced. That is an important point to consider.

The Bill continues the costly obligation to provide temporary accommodation, which will later turn into permanent accommodation. If a family is placed in another borough its temporary accommodation costs will be paid by the original borough. However, all the services provided—that is, the social services and education—will be the expense of the receiving borough. There, too, a large amount of money is involved. The London Boroughs Association reports that in 1991–92 more than 2,400 asylum seekers were accepted as statutorily homeless. The cost of those to the London authorities was about £40 million, including social services, education and housing.

The point was made that last November and this year specific grants were given as a result of the situation in Yugoslavia. They were welcomed but they hardly touched the London boroughs. Indeed, no London borough qualified for any of the money for the Yugoslavians because only 4 per cent. were accepted by the London authorities compared with 21.5 per cent. of those from Somalia and 17 per cent. of those from Zaire. The Yugoslavian special grant did not help the London boroughs and therefore my amendment does not specify the fact that grants should be for a particular body. They should be made in relation to the special expenses which the boroughs must incur in order to comply. What is needed is a permanent, statutory, specific grant for making provision for refugees.

Amendment No. 15 calls for an annual report, which is more or less a formality. However, it would provide a valuable way of monitoring expenditure and enable us to see annually the changing pattern in London. I strongly support the amendments and hope that the Minister will view them seriously. At our meeting in his department we made it clear that our anxieties are genuine and that the national burden is being borne most unfairly by London. Indeed, even across London particular problems exist in certain boroughs and the cost is not distributed evenly. I beg to move.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I understand that it is the wish of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, that my Amendment No. 16 should not be debated with the two amendments standing in her name. That is her right and I accede to her wishes. That enables me to say how strongly I support her amendments. In many ways they are better than mine because they cover not only housing but social services and education. As we learnt from our debates in Committee, expenditure on the provision of social services and education for asylum seekers is in many ways greater than the cost of providing housing for them.

I also welcome the fact that the amendment has removed what I considered to be an unworkable and unduly restrictive provision; that there should be a specific grant only for local authorities whose expenditure is 10 per cent. above that which it would otherwise have been because of the presence of the asylum seekers and their families. Although my suspicion could never have been proved, I believe that provision would have applied only to Uttlesford, which is the district council affected by Stansted airport. I understand that it received the special grant in respect of people coming from Yugoslavia. We now have a more general requirement for a specific grant —in other words, a permanent provision or a provision to be renewed annually according to need —rather than the grace-and-favour special grant which has been given by governments in respect of Yugoslavian and Kurdish refugees.

I was shocked by the noble Baroness's report of her meeting with Ministers. I have always known that the SSA is an inadequate basis for determining the needs and resources of local authorities. However, when she tells the House that no account whatever is taken in the SSA of homelessness—not just homelessness of asylum seekers but of homelessness tout court— I am profoundly shocked. The noble Baroness and I know from our experience of local government that homelessness is a substantial and expensive element of local authority expenditure. The noble Baroness is quite right to say that bed and breakfast accommodation in particular, which is far from being the best, although it could be acceptable, is far more expensive than proper permanent accommodation, which all local housing authorities would wish to provide for those in need in their areas.

Amendments Nos. 14 and 15, and in particular Amendment No. 14 which is critical, provide for housing, social services and education provision for asylum seekers. That is provided as of right and it is to be renewed annually when necessary. The amendment implies that the specific grant would be adequate to the purposes, as reliably and reasonably reported by local authorities.

As all of us in local government know, there are problems as regards specific grants. Philosophically there is a conflict between the desire of local authorities to have complete control over their expenditure and their need to have recognition of their particular problems at particular times. We encountered that problem when we considered ring-fencing of the expenditure on care in the community. Although we do not like ring-fencing we felt that it was necessary to insist on it—and the House agreed with us—for the specific purpose of an element of expenditure which was quite new to local authorities, which was unpredictable and for which it was impossible to say whether adequate provision would be made. I believe that this too is one of those cases.

The expenditure required by local authorities for dealing with asylum seekers and their families is unpredictable. It is difficult to say what it will be area by area and year by year. Under those circumstances, although in many ways I should prefer the SSA to be sufficiently flexible to be adjusted accordingly, I accept that it would be far better to have the specific grant proposed by the amendment than to have nothing at all.

I say that for two specific reasons. The amount of expenditure required is considerable. In the current year about 2,000 households in London fall into that category of asylum seekers and their families. There have been 6,500 over the past three years. London boroughs—notably, Hillingdon, Camden, Lambeth, Hammersmith and Fulham and Haringey and I do not have Westminster on my list but I have no doubt that the noble Baroness could convince me that it should be included—are incurring expenditure of about £1 million in each area on caring for unaccompanied children. There are 5,000 adults and 4,000 children receiving additional language tuition, and many more are on waiting lists for additional English language assistance. Therefore, the amounts of money are large.

The second reason why it is necessary to make special provision is that despite considerable pressure from the noble Baroness and her colleagues at her meeting with Ministers, no specific indication was given that the SSA would be amended quickly, effectively and specifically for that purpose. It is true that if the total population goes up, eventually the size of the population will be reflected in SSA, but that could take a long time. We know how long it has taken for the 1991 census data to be published. The answers given to the noble Baroness and her colleagues are inadequate, bearing in mind the urgency of the problem addressed in the amendments. I hope that the Government will accept them.

7 p.m.

Lord Hylton

My Lords, as regards the last amendment I said that we need a fully thought-out national policy for the reception of refugees. I say that again now, because it cannot be said too often.

In the past there have been moments when we have reached the point of having such a national policy: for example, immediately after the Second World War, when the free Polish forces in Britain were rehoused and resettled in this country; or again, in the immediate aftermath of the Hungarian uprising, when many Hungarians came to this country; or again, during the 1970s, when there was a large influx of Asians, particularly from Uganda.

However, since those days, by and large, it has been left to the individual local authority at the point of arrival or reception in this country to do the best that it can for those people in urgent need. I have corresponded about the health aspects of this question with the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and she tried to be as helpful as she could in correspondence, particularly as regards health care needs in places such as Bayswater and Hackney where there are large concentrations of asylum seekers. That is so because of the existence there of bed and breakfast hotels.

The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, mentioned the childcare aspects which have been concentrated around principal airports, particularly Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. It is quite unfair and wrong that the local authority at the point of entry should have to bear a national burden. This amendment tries to alleviate that problem and to put it right. I am very glad that it does so, though I am not sure whether it goes far enough. It speaks of a specific grant. I hope that that specific grant will turn out to be a 100 per cent. grant. Perhaps when the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, replies, she will tell me what rate she has in mind. However, I am delighted to support the amendment.

Baroness Hamwee

My Lords, I warmly support the amendment—even more warmly as it now extends to the provision of social services and education as well as housing.

Your Lordships have heard a number of large sums quoted this evening. Considerable sums must be borne by local authorities. Perhaps I may add a figure to that list. In the past year, Kensington and Chelsea budgeted to spend £207,000 on housing, but the borough budgeted to spend £850,000 on social services for people in need of those particular services and who fell within that category.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that I am uncomfortable about the philosophy of providing specific grants to meet those problems. However, the enthusiasm and confidence in local government and local democracy expressed by the Minister this evening does not extend to allowing local authorities the discretion to set their own spending limits and raise their own taxes. Therefore, we are stuck with a specific grant.

The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to the time which it would take for the numbers who might be affected to work through into the SSA. From some of the debates earlier this evening I wonder when asylum seekers begin to count as real people for the purposes of assessing needs.

The cost of temporary accommodation has, quite rightly been referred to. That cost is considerable. It is a bad type of provision and it is a terrible waste of money. It is regarded as such by local authorities which are forced into using bed-and-breakfast as a means of accommodation. At the previous stage of the Bill there was mention of what I believe is known as the Bellwin formula; that is, the formula for reimbursing local authorities for unforeseen major expenditure. I believe that that is intended to provide for emergencies, natural disasters and that type of event. We cannot foresee the specific level of asylum seeking but we can foresee that it is not a problem that is likely to go away.

At the previous stage of the Bill the Minister said: a well-managed authority will have made a sensible provision for fluctuations in the predicted level of homelessness acceptances".—[Official Report, 11/2/93; col. 826.] He also said earlier that prudent authorities budget to discharge all their responsibilities effectively. Many authorities are well managed and prudent, which is no doubt why the noble Lord is so fond of them. However, they still have problems. I do not believe his answer dealt with the point that was made so effectively by the noble Baroness, which is that this is a national problem and not a problem that can be disaggregated and dealt with on an authority-by-authority basis.

Lord Monson

My Lords, this is a most desirable pair of amendments not only for the reasons set out so forcefully and effectively by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, and others but also for another reason that I do not think has been touched upon this evening. The Government, the Opposition and all political parties are unanimous in agreeing upon the desirability of promoting good race relations. I use the word "race" in its broadest sense. It is hard to think of anything more likely to promote bad race relations than allowing ratepayers, community charge payers, or council tax payers to feel victimised because of an accident of geography as they happen to live in an area which has a large airport or sea port where large numbers of asylum seekers end up. Those asylum seekers have to be looked after and in the circumstances that is inevitably expensive. I urge the Government to consider carefully this additional argument in favour of this pair of amendments.

Lord Strathclyde

My Lords, I, too, shall speak to Amendments Nos. 14 and 15. We shall discuss Amendment No. 16, standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, in a moment. In seeking additional financial support for local authorities' expenditure on asylum seekers generally, these new clauses raise questions of a very different character from the housing issues with which this part of the Bill is properly concerned. I submit that this is not the Bill in which those provisions should be placed. They should be discussed in the context of local government finance. However, this is the Bill we have in front of us and we must deal with the new clauses on that basis.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, when the noble Lord is discussing whether these provisions are in the right Bill, he should refer to the Long Title of the Bill which states that this is, An Act to make provision about persons who claim asylum in the United Kingdom and their dependants". The Government have quite properly in terms of the Long Title chosen to take that to include the housing provision made for asylum seekers and their dependants in this country. However, there is nothing improper in seeking to extend that to education and social services provision, as these amendments do, in terms of the Long Title of the Bill and what is permissible as an amendment. I do not think that the Government, having taken advantage of the breadth of the Long Title, should then criticise other noble Lords for doing the same.

7.15 p.m.

Lord Strathclyde

My Lords, what the noble Lord has just said rests on the assumption that the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, is correct in her assertion that money is not made available for people who are asylum seekers. I shall demonstrate over the course of the next few minutes that that assumption is misconceived.

There are, of course, well established mechanisms for discussing the costs that local government incurs and how these should be funded. Chief of these is the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance which the Secretary of State for the Environment chairs and upon which all the main local authority associations are represented. Within the same set of arrangements there are also regular and indeed very helpful meetings between officials of the associations and my department in the Settlement Working Group and its various technical sub-groups.

When we debated similar amendments in Committee, I was happy to accept the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding that we should discuss these matters with the London Boroughs Association and the Association of London Authorities away from the Floor of the House. As we heard from my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, we met those associations last week and we explored their concerns. I found that meeting most helpful. The discussion which took place has very much helped to crystallise our understanding of local authorities' concerns and indeed some of their misconceptions.

There is one point that I can deal with straight away. Of course we monitor acceptances of asylum seekers under homeless legislation and we shall continue to do so. There is no suggestion anywhere that we do not do so. It is apparent that the associations' concerns are not specifically about the presence of refugees or asylum seekers. Rather they are concerned about the extent to which the present method of distributing resources to authorities through standard spending assessments properly reflects the costs of providing various types of services. Although asylum seekers may make full use of these services the main demands come from other sections of the population. I have in mind such spending needs as provision for the homeless, the education of children with special needs and the provision of social services for children from ethnic minorities. There can be few authorities (if any) where asylum seekers are the largest client group for such services.

The Government are only too well aware that different sections of the community give rise to different spending needs. The system of standard spending assessments is designed to embrace and reflect the diversity of spending requirements in different local authority areas and to allocate spending resources accordingly. We continually monitor the workings of the SSA system and always seek to use the most recent data in its various indicators.

Recognising the concern felt in some quarters about the detailed workings of the SSA system, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced last month that we are planning to conduct a fundamental review of SSAs over the next few months to ensure that they continue to take the most appropriate factors into account.

The homelessness indicator in SSAs is one of the matters that we shall consider in the review. We need to identify a reliable indicator for inclusion in the SSA formula. If local authority associations wish to make suggestions, it will be most appropriate to consider them at that stage.

My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes asked about a special grant for London. The point here is that SSAs in London are already much higher than elsewhere in the country precisely because London faces a range of problems such as the problem of asylum seekers. In London the average figure is about £1,055 per head compared with £814 per head in metropolitan areas and £677 per head in shire areas. That demonstrates that we are already aware of the different needs.

The Government accept that there are instances where the SSA system does not fully reflect the distribution of spending needs. In 1989 we made available a special grant towards the extra costs to certain London boroughs that resulted from the sudden influx of a large number of Turkish Kurd asylum seekers; and last November the Minister for Housing and Planning announced that we would be making a grant available to those authorities that faced exceptional burdens as a result of the sudden influx of displaced persons from the former Yugoslav republic. When the 1992–93 allocations of that grant were approved in another place last month, the Secretary of State for the Environment announced that the grant would continue to be available for 1993–94. He also mentioned that for 1993–94 a special grant would be made available to cover the immediate costs associated with the arrival of unaccompanied children seeking asylum. Those are the exceptional cases. I hope that noble Lords will realise that in making special arrangements in these instances we are demonstrating our awareness of the limits of the present system.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked when asylum seekers become real people. Their presence will be reflected in population figures about 18 months after their arrival. That is understood by everybody because all changes in population are only reflected after a certain time lag.

Perhaps I may remind the House of the purpose of the Bill in general and of the housing provisions in particular. We see this legislation as part of a package of measures which will result in a speedier and more effective system for determining applications for asylum and will reduce the scope for misuse of the asylum process. Its central provisions concern new administrative arrangements for the handling of asylum seekers and others. Its effect will be the containment of, or indeed a reduction in, the substantial amounts of public spending, both centrally and locally, to which unfounded applications for asylum give rise. Additionally it will reduce expenditure on temporary accommodation by housing authorities and assist them in the better management of their housing stock.

I turn briefly to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes concerning a national policy for refugees. As I have already demonstrated, where pressures become unsustainable the Government act centrally and quickly. Examples are the Vietnamese refugees, the Bosnian refugees and other displaced persons. Generally we are clear that there is no need for central direction. Very often central action can be ineffective since refugees tend to drift back to a few key areas.

We accept that arrivals from overseas give rise to additional costs. That is one of the reasons we are concerned to control the numbers involved. However, it is wrong to say that the additional burden is not recognised in the resources made available to authorities. It is always tempting to try to identify and then to seek recompense for any additional burden, but the Government consider the amendments are not justified. Therefore, I ask my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes

My Lords, I have listened very carefully to what the Minister said but I am not at all satisfied with his reply. For example, his statement that the boroughs are concerned only about the cost is not correct. There are much greater worries. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, made it clear that there are pressures on the communities. That could reach an alarming point if the pressure goes beyond a certain point. It is not all a matter of cost.

I must say to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that I do not think that I said that "no account whatsoever" was taken of homelessness. I think that I said that we were told that it was not dealt with as a specific issue, but I shall look in Hansard to see whether I used the words "no account whatsoever". It sounds rather a sweeping statement, and rather like me, but I may not have said that.

The difference between ring fencing for community care and a grant such as this is that money for community care is allocated in advance. In this case rather than a grant being made in a budget it would be based on actual expenditure. One would not know until after the event how many asylum seekers had to be dealt with. In one year it will be borough A which is affected and the next it will be borough B. Therefore, it would be a real figure rather than an estimate. In that sense it would be easier than ring fencing.

The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, pressed me about the percentage of the grant. One of the great merits of my amendment is that it does not tie the Government to a specific percentage. Perhaps they have not realised that. The amendment mentions a grant but does not say how much or whether it would be 50 per cent. or 100 per cent. That provides an easy escape route for the Government. They should have been delighted to see that instead of rejecting the proposal.

The Minister told us that we shall have speedier and more effective decisions. That is true. We welcome that. However, we must recognise that at present 75 per cent. of asylum seekers do not even qualify for accommodation. It is only 25 per cent. who cause the present problems. Therefore, even if the procedures are speeded up it will not make a great deal of difference because 25 per cent. of the families will still need to be rehoused. In 1991–92 Westminster had to provide housing for 228 asylum applicants, involving temporary accommodation at a cost of £1.3 million. I quote that figure because the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that he had still to be convinced. Westminster's housing expenditure for asylum seekers that year was higher than that of any other borough in London. Now the figure has fallen and Ealing has very high costs.

In the case of the Vietnamese an attempt was made to move people out of London, but they gradually filtered back. It is not easy to suggest to people where they should go. There is a natural tendency to go somewhere where one feels safe, which is familiar or where there are people one knows. That is why my amendment is important. It will help the authorities which are receiving the applicants and providing accommodation and services for them. It is a national issue yet the burden is being carried by a few areas. The amendment would cover that point.

I do not intend to divide the House tonight because I intend to work very hard on the matter before Third Reading and raise it again then. I hope that that will be earlier in the afternoon, when more votes will be available. I am sure that we shall be competing with other amendments, but I hope that in the meantime the Minister may produce an amendment himself and that I shall not be obliged to divide the House. On that basis I am prepared to withdraw the amendment tonight but I shall certainly not forget it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]

Schedule 1 [Housing of asylum-seekers and their dependants: supplementary]:

[Amendment No. 15A not moved.]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 16: After Clause 5, insert the following new clause: