| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Dr. Cable: I should simply like to make a few additional comments on amendment No. 153 and the issue of flexibility. We have already had a very important debate on the principles of vouchers, and the Minister has already said that the regulations will take care of much of the technical detail. I shall ask some specific questions about the principles that will govern the voucher system and its administration.
What principles will govern the determination of which outlets will manage the scheme? This important issue was touched on by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), who asked a question about the supermarket system. When the Home Secretary described what he saw as the integrity of the voucher system, he said that it will work because the people who are given the vouchers are the only ones who can redeem them. That means that supermarket check-out assistants will be the last defence of the voucher system; they will have to enforce it.
A second question is: what approach will the Government take to the so-called black market in vouchers? Perhaps as a result of my economist's background, I take a very charitable view of black markets; in many cases, they represent the triumph of the human spirit over bureaucracy. A black market gives flexibility, enabling people to trade their real needs in the market--but how will the Government deal with a black market in vouchers? Will there be strict enforcement? Will the emergence of a black market cause great concern, or will the Government allow flexibility?
The third question concerns the link between vouchers and dispersal. Many communities will be relatively small. One dilemma that I encountered many years ago, when I was in local government and involved in an original dispersal policy for Ugandan Asians in Scotland, was that many of the areas where council housing was available were extremely poorly served by retail outlets. Will a directorate in London decide which shops in Scottish towns are appropriate avenues for the distribution of vouchers?
The system is highly inflexible and highly inequitable. Surely it would be much more sensible to build flexibility into the legislation, by saying that, at certain times, or in certain parts of the country, cash should be used instead of vouchers, to allow flexibility.
Mr. Allan:
It emerged in Committee that this business of the package of accommodation seems to suggest that the people in London who are negotiating with shops in Scotland will also have to negotiate with landlords in
Dr. Cable:
I thank my hon. Friend, and conclude by emphasising our basic point. We are not, in this debate, trying to rehearse the basic issues of principle, but we suggest that, now that the Government are proceeding with a voucher system, for their own protection in the long term they must build sufficient flexibility into the law.
Mr. Wardle:
Before the Minister responds to the debate, I want to endorse what the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) said. She has a long and impressive track record in this field. I emphasise that it is crucial to the efficiency and effectiveness of the asylum screening process that asylum applicants have confidence in the integrity and the confidentiality--the secrecy--of the information gathered and assessed. If they are to impart their knowledge of what is happening in their home country, it is vital that that confidence exist.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) alluded to backlogs in the asylum process, as well as at Lunar house generally, because of the attempted switch to information technology. He mentioned the problems in the UK Passport Agency. They are all indicative of a clogged system. If the Minister wishes to introduce fairness to the system, he must persuade the Treasury to spend the money to sweep out the whole queue, so that phoney applicants for asylum are not attracted and do not say, "We can come and there is a queue, so we can stay in the queue." That is the best way to serve the genuine applicants, who have a well-founded fear of persecution under the Geneva convention.
Mr. Mike O'Brien:
I shall respond to the points that were raised, although perhaps not in the order in which they were put to me.
First, I give my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) an assurance that I share her anxiety that any information about the identity of an asylum seeker, genuine or not, should not get back to their home country, where it might prejudice their future. Obviously, in some countries, even the simple knowledge that they have claimed asylum may prejudice them. I will therefore speak to the Refugee Legal Centre and others, and discuss how best we can ensure that use of the power does not compromise information that we, too, wish to keep secret.
The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg)--rather unfairly, I thought--reprimanded the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) for the inadequacy of his amendment. I do not want to intrude on private grief, but let me defend the hon. Member for Hertsmere. He did very well. He got a commitment from me that we would consider how more information could be brought forward. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham was extremely unfair to his colleague.
Let me deal with some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan). Amendment No. 153 is not needed. There are powers to suspend or repeal the voucher powers in clause 81 (4) and (5). Accordingly, I ask him not to press the amendment to a Division.
We do not intend to force people on their relatives. That would not be practical. Vouchers and cash will be paid at a standard rate. The utility costs will not be met as an addition. We assume that if the relatives are willing to provide accommodation, they will also be willing to meet the marginal extra costs of utilities while the asylum case is considered.
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) spoke about the black market in vouchers--
Mr. Gerrard:
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. O'Brien:
May I not give way? I know that a number of hon. Members want to deal with points in subsequent debates. I have been generous in giving way up to now, and I want to make some progress.
The black market in vouchers is a matter of concern to us. We will discuss with supermarkets how to deal with it. We will need to deal with it during the course of the regulations. I can tell the hon. Member for Twickenham that we want to ensure flexibility.
My hon. Friend the Member for Slough asked whether, if a case took longer than six months, we would ask why. Yes, we will want to know why. There will be some cases that take more than six months because there are legal backlogs for various reasons. If the delay is due to some failure on the part of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, we will want to know that and rectify it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Slough and the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) rightly spoke of the need for fast decisions and sustainable decisions. The legal cost of making unsustainable decisions is too great. The hon. Gentleman is also right to say that we need to get the Treasury on board. I am glad to say that we have the Treasury fully on board with regard to the Bill. The Treasury will commit extra resources--more than £100 million--to the IND over the next three years to ensure that we can employ the hundreds of extra staff whom we need to clear the backlog.
I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman that the backlog is a major impediment to creating a system that works. The best deterrent to abuse of the asylum system is fair, sustainable and quick decision making so that people know that if they do not have a right to be in this country, they will quickly be removed.
On the points made by the hon. Member for Hertsmere, the recovery at the IND is slow, but it is sure. Asylum decisions are up. We will hit our output targets by April 2000 and April 2001. The problem is that the IND never recovered from the increase in asylum claims that took place after 1988. By 1991, the number was up to 45,000. Since then, the backlog has grown and the problems have got worse. In our view, the previous Government ignored them. This Government are determined to sort out the mess that we inherited.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the UK Passport Agency. I shall not dwell on that, but I share his concern about the temporary problems. They are temporary problems--nothing like the situation that we inherited at Croydon. Although the processing of non-urgent applications is taking longer than usual, the Passport Agency is prioritising applications to meet
urgent and declared travel dates. It is meeting travel dates in 99.9 per cent. of cases, and expects to continue to do so throughout the summer. The agency is recruiting 300 extra staff to reduce the arrears. The work is seasonal, and intake falls from July onwards. That fact, and the new staff, will enable the agency to bring turn-around times down to 10 days by September. I hope that that gives some reassurance to hon. Members.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |