Mr Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 215, in page 20, line 7, after 'the', insert 'essential living needs and'.

Mr Eric Illsley (Barnsley Central, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 261, in page 20, line 9, at end insert

'Or,

(c) if his claim for asylum was accepted.'.

Mr Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat)

In principle we welcome the change provided in the clause, as this is an area of particular concern. When we considered the 1999 Act, we recognised that there could be categories of individuals who had to remain in the UK after the rejection of an asylum claim, either because they could not travel home at that stage or because they were seeking to explore various judicial avenues. There was considerable debate about whether the right to access the due legal process would be infringed if an individual were given that right but no means of support to allow him or her to exercise it. We welcome the provision of accommodation, but amendment No. 215 would extend that to provide accommodation and essential living needs—a package that would enable individuals to remain and exercise their rights or be supported until they could leave the UK. I would be interested to hear how the Government expect the accommodation package to be provided. Is their view that essential living needs are implicit in the provision or is it an accommodation only package?

Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)

I rise merely to say that my name is on the amendment and that I, too, would be interested to hear the Minister's response. There is an argument for widening the clause to cover essential living needs as well as accommodation, in order to enable the person concerned to be adequately maintained during a difficult period.

Ms Rosie Winterton (Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department; Doncaster Central, Labour)

As hon. Members have said, the clause extends the scope of section 4 of the 1999 Act to allow the provision of accommodation to people whose asylum claims have been rejected and to their dependants, whether such people were originally given temporary admission to the UK or made a claim for asylum while they had a form of leave to remain. However, when an asylum claim has been determined and rejected, the main applicant is no longer eligible for support under the asylum support arrangements of the 1999 Act unless he or she is accompanied by dependants under the age of 18. As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam said, in some cases applicants may be unable to return immediately to their country of origin, because they may be suffering from illness or there is no safe route by which they can return, and in order to ensure that such people are not left destitute, basic support may be provided under section 4 of the 1999 Act. Section 4 support may also be provided in certain circumstances to former asylum seekers who have applied for judicial review of the asylum decision. However, the existing provision allows accommodation to be provided only to those who have been temporarily admitted to the UK or released from detention, and it does not cover all asylum seekers whose claims have been rejected.

Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)

Is a person whose asylum application has been rejected all the way down the line but who nevertheless seeks a judicial review classified as no longer an asylum seeker?

Ms Rosie Winterton (Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department; Doncaster Central, Labour)

Such a person would be eligible for section 4 support but would be considered no longer eligible as an asylum seeker for overall NASS support. He or she would be eligible for section 4 support if the asylum decision were being judicially reviewed and that review or the case were judged as having some merit.

The existing provisions allow accommodation to be provided only to those who have been temporarily admitted to the UK or released from detention, and do not cover all asylum seekers whose claims have been rejected. The clause is intended to close that gap and allow the provision of support to all asylum seekers whose claims have been rejected, if the Secretary of State decides to provide accommodation in certain cases. However, we stress that support under section 4 is a last resort. It is not intended to replicate the provision of support under the asylum support scheme, but to meet the basic living needs—food and shelter—of unsuccessful asylum seekers who cannot immediately leave the country. The current arrangements achieve that for those eligible to benefit from it, and it is unnecessary to amend section 4 of the 1999 Act further in the way proposed.

We understand the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam. However, the Government consider amendment No. 261 to be unnecessary, as we are already working with interested parties through the national refugee integration forum to promote the resettlement and integration of successful asylum seekers into the community. The Home Office is also working with the Department for Work and Pensions to improve the arrangements for enabling successful asylum seekers to

transfer from central Government support to mainstream benefits, or to enter the labour market. The Home Office is also considering further written guidance on how successful asylum applicants can access mainstream services. I hope that I have reassured hon. Gentlemen, and that the amendment will be withdrawn.

Mr Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat)

I am grateful for the Minister's polite and comprehensive response. It was sufficiently comprehensive to include reference to amendment No. 261, which I failed to discuss, as too many of my amendments are numbered in the 200s and I got confused. The Minister touched on the point that we were trying to raise about the transitional arrangements, which the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North mentioned earlier. Those arrangements continue to concern us, and I welcome the Minister's comment that they are a priority for successful claimants.

The Government are clearly giving serious consideration to resettlement. The support provided at that point is key to whether an individual integrates successfully. We discussed the citizenship test earlier. It is critical to provide support at the crucial point when individuals know that they will spend a significant part of the rest of their lives, if not the rest of their entire life, in the United Kingdom. I am grateful to the Minister for being a mind reader and responding on that point.

The clause was clarified as we hoped, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.