| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Straw: Some people from some countries are of course genuine applicants but, none the less, cannot meet convention criteria. I can think of someone in my constituency whose fear was unquestionably genuine but whose claim did not meet convention criteria. As it happened, when he returned to Kenya, he did not run in to any of the problems that he had anticipated. I can think of scores of cases from my constituency--as can my hon. Friends from their constituencies--of people who have made up the application from top to bottom. In one case in my constituency surgery only last Friday, I discovered after some questioning that this chap who had submitted an asylum application had paid an unofficial immigration adviser £5,500 to make it up. I am afraid that such ripping off of people is all too typical.
One of the uncontroversial points--at least on the Government Benches--is that we should take proper control of such unscrupulous immigration advisers. Had the Conservatives done so in response to the amendments that we tabled to the Asylum and Immigration Bill, such exploitation would not be going on.
If the hon. Member for Hallam looks down the list of countries from which some thousands of asylum applicants are coming, and notes that fewer than 1 per cent. of them--in some cases 0 per cent.--are given either exceptional leave to remain or refugee status, he is bound to conclude, as everyone who has any experience of these matters does, that most of them come to this country without any basis for a claim and are often facilitated by criminals who are involved in the trafficking of human beings.
Having dealt with some of the issues of principle, let me consider the issue raised by many of my hon. Friends concerning whether we should move to this system of vouchers. As I have sought to explain, the main reason for the change--there has never been any dubiety about the use of a system of vouchers with some cash--is to reduce the incentive among abusive claimants to exploit the system.
Another reason for moving to the new system is that the locally based arrangements are not working. I listened to my hon. Friends speaking about the current
arrangements; my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Coleman), a former leader of Hammersmith and Fulham council, acknowledged that many London boroughs were doing very good work with asylum seekers, but, strikingly, representatives of those very London boroughs have been to see me and the Under-Secretary to plead with us to end the locally based system because of the pressure on individual London boroughs.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman (Billericay):
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
If that locally based system is to be ended, there must be a national system, and if there is to be a national system, there must be arrangements by which the pressure on the local areas is relieved, and that means that there must be some system of national dispersal. However, as was repeatedly explained in the Special Standing Committee, it will be a sensible dispersal. People will not be scattered to the four corners of the United Kingdom, to areas with which they have no connection. We propose to develop relevant clusters.
I can testify that in many areas outside London there are well-settled ethnic minority communities--I think of my constituency, where there is a small Bosnian Muslim one. Because of that, we are taking some people from Kosovo. The same arrangements and connections can apply under the Asylum Support Directorate arrangements, and they will, because it is not in the interests of the Home Office that we should introduce dispersal arrangements that do not work and that lead to a drift back to London.
Mrs. Gorman:
I came into the Chamber rather late, but I have been following the debate on the monitor. I notice that the Home Secretary has said that he has not received a great deal of support for vouchers. I should like him to know that, in contrast with the difficulty that some of his hon. Friends are creating for him, I certainly--and, I am sure, many of my colleagues and a lot of my constituents--support the voucher system because it helps to reduce many forms of abuse, including the supply of money to pay some of the bogus people who give advice, a practice which his hon. Friends seem to support.
Mr. Straw:
I am very pleased that I gave way. In my situation, one treasures support from whatever quarter it comes.
On the value of the--
Mr. Gapes:
Will my right hon. Friend allow me to intervene? He knows that I represent a London constituency in which there are many Somali refugees. I support a dispersal policy, but I am worried about what might happen if people who are moved far from London choose to leave the accommodation provided by the new system and return to the London boroughs where they have relatives, before their cases have been determined. I should be grateful for my right hon. Friend's assurance that, if there is any sign that that is happening, measures
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. That intervention was too long.
Mr. Straw:
Let me say two things to my hon. Friend--if I can remember what they are. First, if someone was provided with accommodation somewhere in the north-west, where there was a settled Somali community, but decided of his own volition to leave that accommodation and move back to Ilford to stay with friends and relatives, he would still be able to claim the essential living needs part of the asylum support that we are providing. He would therefore receive his cash and vouchers, but his accommodation costs would not be paid. Perhaps the point has not been brought out strongly enough. That person would get that element in any event. As I keep saying to my hon. Friends, no part of the package will leave people destitute. If they chose to live with their relatives, they would get living support, but not accommodation.
Secondly, in extreme circumstances such as my hon. Friend describes, there are reserve powers in the Bill that would have to be used. I do not anticipate that they would need to be used, but we are trying to anticipate every eventuality.
I shall deal first with whether the vouchers and cash will be comparable, then with how vouchers can be used and the target for families. As my hon. Friends are aware and as the Special Standing Committee discussed at some length, the aim of the support package is that it should be comparable to what is currently received by families who are on a mixture of social security and housing benefit, or families who are in receipt of benefits in kind from a local authority.
I understand the concern of many of my hon. Friends about support for children and about the fact that families can build up expenses for renewals, which would not have been accommodated under the original proposals. For that reason, we are making provision for what amount to single discretionary payments every six months. By the way, to those who say that that involves no additional expenditure, may I point out that it does involve additional expenditure and, in my view, it is right that it should, because we had not recognised the need at the beginning.
There is not time to go into detail on the calculations now. We are providing full accommodation costs, whatever they are. The accommodation is also being provided in kind--we are providing not only pots and pans, but bed linen, which is not provided typically in furnished accommodation, still less in unfurnished accommodation--and we are paying for utilities. Broadly, the support that we are providing will be equivalent to the 90 per cent. of income support that is otherwise available to asylum seekers.
I draw the attention of my hon. Friends to the fact that even if someone is on cash benefits and is paid income support and housing benefit, the housing benefit is paid only at the average of the rent available in that sector of accommodation in that area. That can mean that some asylum seekers pay above the level of the housing benefit that they receive.
We have examined the figures carefully, and I accept also that for families with three or more children, the support arrangements do not meet the 90 per cent. level.
We are studying the calculations with great care. I give an undertaking to my hon. Friends and to the House that I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State in the other place will be able to deal with these matters to their satisfaction when the Bill reaches another place.
Ms Abbott:
May I refer to an earlier exchange between him and my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes)? My hon. Friend asked whether Somalis who were dispersed a long way from Ilford and came back to Ilford would still get their benefits, and the Home Secretary said yes. However, clause 83 clearly states:
Mr. Straw:
Of course the regulations make provision for that, as would any sensible set of regulations. It has always been part of the system that some people who had accommodation sorted out for themselves could be provided with the element of the support package that covered essential living needs. That has always been the case. Of course, if there is a wilful refusal to take accommodation or to accept support in other circumstances, that can be withdrawn.
"The regulations may also make provision for the suspension or discontinuation of support"
under circumstances in which there has been
"cessation of residence . . . in accommodation provided".
Can the Home Secretary clarify that, as I am sure that he did not intend to mislead the House?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |