HL Deb 03 March 1998 vol 586 cc1092-5

2.56 p.m.

Lord Evans of Parkside

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether the proposal of Westminster City Council to move asylum seekers from London to Merseyside accords with their policy.

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Baroness Jay of Paddington)

My Lords, social services authorities in London, as indeed elsewhere, are seeking to discharge their duties towards asylum seekers as they are currently defined in the most cost-effective and appropriate way. How this is done is, of course, a matter for individual authorities. We would, however, expect those seeking to move asylum seekers to consider very carefully the consequences of doing this, including the impact on the asylum seekers themselves and on the existing communities in the receiving area, and to seek the views of the local authority concerned. As I said in answer to another Starred Question on asylum seekers in your Lordships' House last week, we do not believe that the present system is working well. That is why the Government are reassessing the whole process, including the way that welfare support is delivered to asylum seekers.

Lord Evans of Parkside

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Does she accept that a number of issues are raised by the proposal of Westminster City Council to relocate asylum seekers on Merseyside, as reported in the Evening Standard? Is my noble friend aware that Merseyside has probably the highest male unemployment in Great Britain and that if there is imported competition for the limited number of jobs available it may cause some friction with local jobseekers? Will the refugees' applications for asylum be speeded up or retarded by living in Merseyside rather than in London? More importantly, will my noble friend give a categorical assurance that no Merseyside local authority will be called upon to make any contribution towards the cost of the imported asylum seekers, no matter how long those asylum seekers remain on Merseyside?

Baroness Jay of Paddington

My Lords, all of the points that my noble friend has raised reflect precisely the considerable concern that is felt about this problem by the asylum seekers themselves and by the relevant local authorities. I assure my noble friend that we are aware of the potential for difficulties on Merseyside in terms of employment. That is why Westminster Council consulted carefully with the local authorities on Merseyside before deciding to take this step. As I am sure my noble friend is aware, the step was taken because of the large numbers involved. Suitable accommodation in London is now scarce. I assure my noble friend that the costs will continue to be borne by the London local authority. He will be as aware as I that a large number of asylum requests are pending. The Government are seeking to speed up that process.

The Lord Bishop of Lichfield

My Lords, is the Minister aware that local authorities near Gatwick airport estimate that expenditure on unaccompanied children seeking asylum is approximately £1.2 million a year? If so, is it not time for the Government to decide that the National Assistance Act will not be used in the long term for providing support to asylum seekers but that a return to a realistic benefit system is both cheaper and easier to administer?

Baroness Jay of Paddington

My Lords, we are very much aware of the problem of unaccompanied children. As the right reverend Prelate says, it is a problem in areas around airports and seaports in this country, and is growing. It is very much a focus of the review being undertaken. The review is comprehensive and will deal with the subject of unaccompanied children among the other relevant issues.

Baroness Ludford

My Lords, the Question refers to government policy. The Minister replied that it was up to local authorities. It is precisely the absence of a national policy after 10 months in office which so concerns many of us. We are anxious to hear the results of the review. We believe that it should be a national responsibility to welcome and support asylum seekers. Is the noble Baroness aware that the Refugee Council is worried that one result of the current situation is an adverse impact on race relations? That is of great concern to many inner London authorities where the excess costs to local authorities are between £0.5 million and £1 million a year. When budgets are being cut across the board the situation is not helpful to race relations. The Government are undermining the position.

Baroness Jay of Paddington

My Lords, as I said in answer to previous questions, the Government are at least as concerned as any Member of your Lordships' House about difficulties which many local authorities face on this issue. That is why at central government level, led by my noble and right honourable friends from the Home Office, the Government are addressing the matter as a central policy issue. With her roots and background in local government, I am sure that the noble Baroness would not wish central government to override the autonomous decisions of local authorities on this matter.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, is the Minister aware that she gave no effective reply to the question of the right reverend Prelate? It is a most interesting and constructive suggestion that I have not heard before. Would the noble Baroness care to reply to it?

Baroness Jay of Paddington

My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord if he feels that I did not reply specifically. The reason that I did not do so was precisely because the issue of the children's grant, the levels of which have not been fixed for next year, is subject to the general consideration on the national strategy which the noble Baroness and other noble Lords have rightly demanded should be forthcoming.

Lord Avebury

My Lords, is the Minister aware that Westminster is not the only London borough which has had to decant asylum seekers to other parts of the country? Lambeth has had to do the same for reasons of cost effectiveness. Even so, in 1997–98 the council taxpayers of Lambeth are having to foot a bill of no less than £1 million for looking after asylum seekers. Does the noble Baroness not consider that it is grossly unfair that the residents in a borough which is home to many deprived people should have to bear those additional costs?

Baroness Jay of Paddington

My Lords, yes, and that is precisely why we have said that the National Assistance Act, induced by court action in previous years, is not a suitable way of dealing with the problem. That is precisely why we are addressing the issue. One interesting result of moving asylum seekers from the London boroughs is that I understand they tend to disappear. That may be a way—I do not mean this frivolously—by which local authorities seek to avoid some of their responsibilities. For example, I understand that when Westminster tried to move a large number of asylum seekers to Great Yarmouth where there was a certain amount of reasonable accommodation, it being a seaside resort with only seasonal pressures, 74 per cent. of the asylum seekers simply disappeared. I am sure that the noble Lord would not wish that to be adopted as a policy.