| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Allan: It was not made clear in Committee whether the support provided to someone who lived with
friends of relatives would be identical to that provided to someone living in accommodation that was provided for them.
Mr. O'Brien: The support will be paid in a different way if people are accommodated. One of the aims of the accommodation system is to provide for the heating and lighting costs, as well as other factors. Those who choose the support without the accommodation will pay their own utility costs, which will no doubt be shared if they are living with relatives. However, the offer of accommodation and support will still be open to them. They can choose whatever they feel is most appropriate.
Mr. Corbyn: The Minister seems to be saying that there would be no impediment to the continued payment of the support system apart from the housing cost if someone chose to live somewhere other than the place that they were initially allocated. Is that correct?
Mr. O'Brien: We shall offer an asylum seeker accommodation plus support. That will include payment of utilities bills and payments for various other temporary needs such as kettles, cutlery and the like. That choice remains open at all times. However, some may choose not to take that option and will live elsewhere, taking just the cash plus vouchers. The choice will be theirs and it will not be forced on them by us.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: The Home Secretary said that people who took the offer of accommodation had their utilities paid for. What happens in respect of the utilities for those who make their own accommodation arrangements? Will those people be able to uplift the standard vouchers and cash to be able to pay for their utilities themselves?
Mr. O'Brien: They will be offered accommodation plus support. If they decide not to accept that, they will have chosen to accept only vouchers plus cash. Some may choose to go one way and others another. They may change their mind at some point in the process. That will be a matter for them.
11 pm
The vouchers will be exchangeable at a wide range of outlets throughout the United Kingdom and there will be no restriction on the items for which they may be used, although we would expect them to be used only by the person or household to whom they are issued. We are actively considering the possibility of their being redeemable at charity shops.
It was pointed out in Committee--and we listened carefully--that some people may feel that clothing and other items are too expensive in supermarkets. Many people buy clothing and low-cost items at charity shops, and we are considering with the charities whether they could help by accepting vouchers.
Our aim is that the asylum seekers will be in the support arrangements on average for no more than six months, and often for much shorter periods. If they are recognised as genuine refugees under the 1951 convention, we would want that to happen as soon as possible, within two months or less; the sooner the better, from our point of view. The only restriction is the five-day
period that we have agreed should be allowed for people to present their case, after which we will want to proceed to a decision unless there is good reason for not doing so, such as that the asylum seeker or his legal representative wants to provide further evidence.
Audrey Wise (Preston):
The big principles about the vouchers have already been well rehearsed, but a smaller point bothers me. The fact that they are in bigger units than our normal currency will almost inevitably cost people more. If the smallest unit is 50p, for example, is there any way of arranging that change could be given? It would not be a lot of cash, but it would save people losing some of their meagre resources.
Mr. O'Brien:
In due course, we will consider the detail of the regulations. Throughout our proceedings, right from the start of the consultation process on the White Paper, we have agreed to listen to representations, and we are actively considering the point that my hon. Friend raised. The units of the voucher could be as little as 25p, and we are considering whether it would be useful to have a small amount of cash in change.
We do not want to get into a position in which people buy a newspaper to get all the cash, because that would go against the whole spirit of the exercise, but we want to take a reasonable approach. Allowing some change to be given and ensuring that the denominations are small enough is one way of trying to ensure that the system works effectively. We are continuing to listen, and I will consider the matter as we develop the criteria for the regulations.
Mr. Corbyn:
What representations has the Minister had from the supermarket chains about the use of these vouchers, and are they concerned about them?
Mr. O'Brien:
I am not aware that they have expressed concerns to us. I know that others have, particularly about the fact that the way in which the local authorities have run some of their voucher schemes has meant that the vouchers were restricted to particular supermarkets in an area. We want to set up a national scheme so that, if the asylum seeker has to move for a period, visit relatives, or whatever, the voucher can be used at any major national supermarket and, in due course, if we can negotiate the arrangements, with various charity organisations.
The aim is to ensure that we create a system that works and we shall be discussing closely with the supermarkets any concerns that they may have about how the system might operate. We shall be anxious to listen to them and to see whether there are ways in which we can more effectively ensure that the system deals with the proper needs of those seeking asylum.
Liberal Democrat amendment No.154 seeks to leave out the provision that would allow the new Asylum Support Directorate to make assumptions about what support might be available to an asylum seeker if he chose to seek it. We need the provision. Asylum support from the Home Office is supposed to be the last resort to prevent destitution, not the first port of call for the Imelda Marcoses or the Shahs of Iran contemplating an asylum claim.
Without the provision, we would have difficulty in asking asylum seekers what other resources or assets might be at their disposal. They may, for example,
have relatives already established in this country who are offering them accommodation, so that they would need to rely on the ASD only for other support. In general, the ASD would not expect those relatives to provide essential living expenses, or anything like that. The purpose of the provision is not to attempt to offload responsibility onto any unwilling third party.
Amendment No. 155 is also unnecessary. In assessing an applicant's assets, we may wish to take into account certain valuables including, if it is a substantial amount, gold or other jewellery. That represents a significant source of wealth in some communities. However, I have made it clear that we shall not be taking into account wedding rings or personal devotional objects. That is not the objective of the exercise. That will be made clear in the regulations on the ASD support system that we shall produce in due course. We shall consult on just what to prescribe in that way in due course.
As I have already said, there are examples of people bringing in substantial amounts of gold. I have spoken to some myself. The woman to whom I spoke at Waterloo said that she was carrying the equivalent of £4,000 worth of gold. She had come from a country in some turmoil, so we usually grant asylum to its people if they apply. In many ways, it is an unsafe country. I never ask the names of people to whom I speak, so I do not know the name of the lady in question, although no doubt it would be possible to trace her. She was coming here to set up a business, but she was also fleeing from a country with a civil war; she had sold her business to come here, bringing with her the proceeds of that sale.
Someone with £4,000 is not destitute. We would expect to be able to take that into account. To exclude whole classes of objects in primary legislation, as the Liberal Democrats propose, rather than on the basis of a more detailed test, which we can consider when we produce the regulations in due course, would be wrong. This is the wrong time and the wrong legislation for such an amendment. If Liberal Democrats have a view about this, we can discuss it when the regulations come before the House.
Mr. Clappison:
I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 19 and 16. As has been correctly anticipated, amendment No. 19 is designed to introduce a much-needed element of accountability into the new system. Amendment No. 16 deals with a different point: it explores the wisdom of giving responsibility for the new asylum support system to the Home Office.
The Government propose the creation of a brand new administrative arm of the Home Office for the management of asylum support. Given that there is no tradition of Home Office experience in such matters, and that the administrative machinery will be wholly new, the background is hardly propitious. The backlog of cases being managed by the asylum determination system, which is a Home Office responsibility, is now reaching record levels. It rose from 64,000 at the end of last year to 76,000 at the end of April, and is still growing.
I shall not go further into those figures, although the Under-Secretary of State has referred to my interest in such matters. Indeed, we are very familiar with each other's speeches on them, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) said yesterday. To be fair to the Under-Secretary, he was good
enough not to give us the full version of his speech, in which he sets out his perception of responsibility for those issues.
However, we could reach common ground. The system has got much worse--I shall resist the temptation to say that that has happened in recent months--and the backlog is at a record high. The waiting times for asylum determination appeals taken together are miles away from the Government's targets. The evidence given in the Special Standing Committee shows that hardly anyone seriously believes that the Government will achieve their targets. The officials who naturally said that the Government would achieve those targets did so with a knowing look or a wry smile.
I recently received a letter from the Under-Secretary about the current state of the passport system. Members of the public who want a passport so that they can go on holiday abroad this summer are facing long delays. The letter states:
That earlier letter stated:
"I am sorry that the current arrears are resulting in calls to MPs' offices."
That is not entirely surprising, but the wording seemed rather familiar. In my file of letters from the Minister, I found one on the subject of the backlog in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. The long queues of people wanting to stay in this country prove that there is no discrimination in the Government's policy: backlogs are affecting people who want to leave the country and those who want to stay in.
"One final category of work that is causing problems in Croydon results from MPs' letters chasing progress on particular cases. On 12 January, I asked colleagues to forward only the most urgent enquiries . . . Nonetheless, it is disappointing to note that the number of enquiries from MPs has risen over the recent period by a factor of 25 per cent."
How very disagreeable it is of Members of Parliament to have the temerity to write letters to Ministers, let alone to expect answers.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |