INELIGIBLE APPLICANTS (Hansard, 8 July 1996)

§ Mr. Clappison
I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 3, line 7, at end insert— '( ) a health authority, special health authority or NHS trust:'.

§ Madam Speaker
With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 119, 46, 121, 57, 59 and 60.

§ Mr. Clappison
Under the current regime, NHS authorities and trusts are prevented from applying for grant by direction of the Secretary of State. In Committee, the hon. Member for Greenwich tabled an amendment that would have added such bodies to the list in clause 3(2) of applicants who cannot apply for grant. We agreed to consider that amendment, and, as a result of our deliberations, we have tabled amendment No. 16, which we believe achieves that.
Amendment No. 46 ensures that such bodies are also excluded from participating in group repair schemes as assisted persons. Amendments Nos. 119 and 121 achieve the same effect for police authorities established under section 3 of the Police Act 1964. The lists of ineligible applicants in clauses 3 and 64 also include new town corporations and housing action trusts.
35 Clause 3 also refers to urban development corporations. However, clauses 141 to 143 provide for those bodies to be dissolved and successor bodies created. We have therefore tabled amendments Nos. 57, 59 and 60, which provide that references to such bodies in part I should also be construed as references to their successor bodies. These are sensible amendments, which will ensure that grant goes only to appropriate persons.

§ Mr. Raynsford
As the Minister said, some of the amendments build on amendments that we moved in Committee and we welcome them. I congratulate him on the exemplary speed with which he lucidly explained so many technical amendments. I hope that he will follow that path during the remaining proceedings, and that he will continue to be as positive in accepting Opposition amendments.

§ Mr. Clappison
I beg to move amendment No. 120, in page 3, line 15, at end insert— '( ) Regulations under subsection (3) may proceed wholly or in part by reference to the provisions relating to entitlement to housing benefit, or any other form of assistance, as they have effect from time to time.'.

§ Madam Speaker
With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 122 and 123.

§ Mr. Clappison
In Committee, we debated the powers in clause 3 that enable the Secretary of State to make regulations excluding certain categories of applicant from grant entitlement. As I explained then, the purpose of clause 3(2) is to prevent public sector bodies from applying for grant.
Clause 3(3) enables the Secretary of State to exclude applicants of certain descriptions. On commencement of part I, we intend to exercise clause 3(3) to exclude certain persons from abroad who have limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom while their applications to remain are dealt with. Under Home Office immigration rules, such persons are not to have recourse to public funds while they are in Britain. In previous debates, the hon. Members for Greenwich and for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Davies) were concerned about the implications of the new provisions.
It was suggested that references to those categories should be included in the Bill. I explained that there is no power in the legislation for the Secretary of State to specify certain applicants who are to be excluded from applying for grant. We have therefore been unable to make provision in the subordinate legislation to reflect changes in this area made to benefit regulations, which, as hon. Members know, the grant regulations mirror. Subsection (3) provides a regulation-making power to exclude certain categories of applicant. It is not appropriate that specific categories should be included in the Bill. The rules themselves may change, and it is appropriate that there is flexibility in the grants legislation to respond quickly to such change.
36 The purpose of the amendment is to reflect in the grants legislation a recent Court of Appeal judgment concerning the Social Security (Persons from Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 1996. The court ruled that the regulations were ultra vires in so far as they purported to deny benefits to certain persons pursuing immigration matters with the Home Office.
The amendment inserts a reference providing for regulations made under clause 3 to refer to the provisions relating to entitlement to housing benefit and any other form of assistance that may have effect from time to time. In effect, it will ensure that those persons excluded in the regulations are people who are subject to immigration control who are not entitled to housing benefit. It will ensure that those who are covered by these controls but who are able to apply for benefit following the court ruling are not excluded from grant eligibility.
We have already debated these provisions. It is unlikely that many of those who are covered by the relevant immigration controls would qualify for grants under part I.
The purpose of the grant system is to ensure that people are given help with repairs and improvements, so that they may remain in fit homes. The legislation is therefore framed to meet that objective, with most applicants required to satisfy a prior qualifying period of ownership or occupation of the dwelling. It is unlikely that many persons covered by the immigration rules would be able to meet these and other requirements of the grants legislation. The amendment would ensure that no one who qualifies for housing benefit will be excluded from grant eligibility.
Amendments Nos. 122 and 123 make similar provision in respect of a person's eligibility to participate in a group repair scheme or to receive home repair assistance. I commend the amendments to the House.

§ Mr. Raynsford
As the Minister rightly conceded, it is not likely that many people who come to the United Kingdom seeking asylum will be in a position to apply for renovation grants. That of itself should cause us to pause for thought about the wisdom of the proposed measures, and of the way in which the Government are proceeding.
Another cause for thought is that the Minister has stressed that the proposed legislation has been framed to ensure that anyone who qualifies for housing benefit will not be debarred from renovation grant. The Minister will be aware that the majority of home owners are those who qualify for renovation grants. By definition, they do not qualify for housing benefit. The reference to housing benefit will cause a great deal of confusion, but it is there because it is the test that is used for the definition of entitlement to welfare benefits, a test that may result in people being denied those benefits because they are asylum seekers.
The Minister might like to reflect on a further area of confusion. There was a well publicised case recently of someone who, threatened with deportation from this country, sought refuge or sanctuary in church premises, from where he was seized by immigration officials. According to reports in the press, his seizure caused him a serious health problem.
I do not want to go into the circumstances of that case, but I ask the Minister to reflect on the interrelationship of the amendments and the provisions in amendment No. 56, 37 which he will be moving later. He will know that amendment No. 56 would exempt charities and ecclesiastical residences from restrictions on participation in group repair schemes.
It would at the least be curious if renovation grants or group repair financial assistance were available to premises in which immigrants were seeking sanctuary because of the draconian nature of the immigration procedures facing them. It seems that there would be no bar on payment of a grant to such premises under the provisions in the amendments. At the same time, in the very few cases in which an asylum seeker was in a position to seek the benefit of a group repair scheme, he or she would be debarred by the nature of the proposed provisions.
The amendments are one further rather sad illustration of the Government's ill-conceived and mean-minded vendetta against asylum seekers, many of whom have a genuine fear of persecution and are in this country because of fear for their lives elsewhere. The fact that people are being treated in such a way by the Government constitutes one of the more shameful records in the annals of the Government. They will be remembered for it long after they have been forced out of office.

§ Mr. Chris Davies
I endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford), but I welcome the slight clarification that has been inserted into the clause. Any limitation on the enormously open-ended freedom that was given to the Secretary of the State in the original clause—to determine at almost any time who should be entitled to grant aid—is to be welcomed.