I would like to update the House on the provision introduced in section 9 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004. This provision is intended as a means of influencing the attitudes and behaviours of unsuccessful asylum seeking families who are not taking steps to facilitate their departure from the United Kingdom to their country of origin. It does this by providing for the termination of support in cases where the assessment is that the family is not co-operating or placing themselves in a position where they can leave. The provision was piloted between December 2004 and December 2005 in three areas.

We introduced the provision because it is not right that families who have had their asylum claims carefully considered—including by the independent appellate authorities—should expect to remain in the United Kingdom indefinitely, even after it has been decided that they are not in need of international protection. It is preferable for all concerned if families agree to make a voluntary return home. This is a more dignified approach—and allows access to the reintegration assistance provided through the International Organisation for Migration. However the Border and Immigration Agency must be able to enforce return where a family refuses to make a voluntary return—including in cases where the co-operation of the family is required to obtain necessary passports or other travel documents.

In the form piloted section 9 did not significantly influence behaviour in favour of cooperating with removal—although there was some increase in the number of applications made for travel documents. This suggests that the section 9 provision should not be seen as a universal tool to encourage departure in every case. We therefore do not propose that the section 9 provision should be used on an indiscriminate basis by Border and Immigration Agency case owners in the future.

Since the pilot of the section 9 provision was undertaken the approach to dealing with asylum applications by the Agency has, however, undergone a significant transformation. Making fast track asylum decisions—and removing those whose claims fail—was one of the four objectives set out in the review we published last July. The new approach being taken by the Agency offers a more credible and sustainable end-to-end system. Specialist case owners are now responsible for managing the claimants and their cases through the whole system to either removal or integration as a refugee. Faster and higher quality processes are leading to a better deal for the well founded claimant. This is supported by a strong focus on ensuring that early steps are taken so that those whose claims are not successful leave the United Kingdom in a timely manner.

I have therefore decided that the section 9 provision should be available to case owners dealing with cases under our new end-to-end asylum process. While it will not be suitable on a blanket-basis, it is important that we retain an ability to withdraw support from families who are wilfully not co-operating in the process. Going forward it should be for case owners to take a view, based on an established relationship with the family and an intimate knowledge of the asylum claim which has not been successful, of which approach to encouraging departure is most likely to be effective. Case-specific close working with appropriate officials from the local authority will normally be required if the use of the section 9 provision is being considered.

A short report detailing the outcome of the pilot for the 116 families involved in the pilot and the 116 families used as a control group has been made available on the Border and Immigration Agency website.