| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Singh: Does my right hon. Friend believe that vouchers are a more efficient, compassionate and humane way of supporting asylum seekers than cash payments?
Mr. Kaufman: I do not believe that vouchers are more compassionate. I do not know whether they will be more efficient. They are worth trying, particularly on the discriminatory basis that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary described. I cannot say that I am delirious with pleasure at the idea that the Bill contains them, but the situation must be solved because of the many people who are suffering seriously from what my right hon. Friend inherited from the Conservative Government.
Mr. Michael Howard (Folkestone and Hythe): Despite his inaccurate criticisms of the record of the previous Government, I derived a good deal of encouragement from the speech of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). The implication, when one cut
through much of the language of his speech, was a recognition at last from a Labour Member that the challenge that we face is how to deter undeserving applicants for political asylum so that applicants genuinely fleeing persecution can have their claims dealt with speedily and effectively, and can be given the asylum to which they are entitled.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North): Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Howard: I have very little time. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I will not give way again.
Mr. Corbyn: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman goes any further down this road, can he tell us where he gets any evidence that any change in the number of people fleeing to Britain, or anywhere else in Europe, to seek a place of safety under the terms of the 1951 Geneva convention has taken place as a result of a system of payments of benefits either in cash or in kind?
Mr. Howard: I am coming to exactly that point. In view of the criticisms made by the right hon. Member for Gorton and repeatedly made by the Home Secretary and other Home Office Ministers, I want to begin this necessarily brief speech by putting the record straight.
These are the figures. In 1996--the last full year of the previous Government's term--the number of asylum seekers was just under 30,000--29,640. In the previous year, the number was almost 44,000--43,965 to be exact. That reduction was a direct result of the 1996 legislation for which I was responsible and the associated benefit changes for which my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) was responsible.
If we compare the figures month by month--a much fairer comparison since the changes were not in force for the whole of 1996--the percentage reduction was even greater than that represented by the figures that I have just quoted. If, for example, we compare May 1996 with May 1995, the reduction was almost 50 per cent. The statistics are a matter of record. If the Home Secretary wants to challenge them, I will give way to him.
At present, the number of those seeking asylum is soaring and out of control; the backlog is soaring and out of control. That is a direct consequence of the decisions of the Home Secretary. He had the remedy in his own hands. He could have implemented in full the measures contained in the 1996 Act and the associated benefit changes, but he chose not to do so. The consequences were predictable and they have come to pass.
I hope that the measures that the Home Secretary is now putting in place will succeed. I give him this personal assurance. I do not join him in criticising the Lords amendment this evening simply to embarrass him and make mischief for him among some of his hon. Friends. I hope that his measures succeed. If they do, it will be greatly to the benefit of my constituents in Folkestone and those in neighbouring parts of east Kent.
The effect of the Home Secretary's measures would be significantly diminished if the Lords amendment were to stand. There is concern among hon. Members of all parties about the backlog. The key to reducing the backlog is to reduce the number of undeserving applicants. That, too, is proved by the record of the previous Government.
In 1995, just over 27,000 decisions on asylum were made--27,005, to be precise. In 1996, after the changes that I have described, that number increased to almost 39,000--38,960. The number of decisions in 1996 exceeded the number of applications for asylum by almost 10,000. The backlog was being substantially reduced, which was a far cry from the situation that we face at present.
Ms Abbott:
I am glad to have the opportunity to speak briefly in support of Lords amendment No. 135. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said that if the amendment were allowed to stand, it would set unfulfillable criteria. On the contrary, the criteria set by the amendment for the average times of determination were those that Ministers assured us over and over again--in the House and in Committee--could and would be met. I do not want to detain the House on this point, but it may be helpful if I repeat the words of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on Report. He said:
Mr. Straw:
With great respect to my hon. Friend, I have provided a most important assurance, which I also gave on Report, that, in respect of families with children, we will not introduce the voucher-based system of support until we are clear that we are meeting--for most cases, although not for all cases, as I have always made clear--the two plus four target. Moreover--I am sorry if my hon. Friend did not hear what was said, because she was certainly present--we are already rolling out arrangements to fast-track families with children. I gave details about that in respect of the first 600 such people who had made applications in October.
Ms Abbott:
As my right hon. Friend will be aware, the concern is about the interim arrangements and what they will mean. I repeat to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench the concern about people whose cases are currently in the backlog. It is one thing to say that they will not be subject to false dispersal, but the transitional arrangements will have to be extremely carefully made, because although those people might not be subject to dispersal, they might lose their housing benefit. In practice, that would mean that they could no longer stay in their current homes.
I have only a few minutes in which to speak, but I put it to Ministers that, if their assurances about meeting the time targets for the resolution of those cases meant anything, they have nothing to fear from the thinking behind Lords amendment No. 135.
"I also ask my hon. Friend to accept that I will be responsible to the House, and to Members on each side of it, if the system fails to meet the target"--
that is, the target for the average times. He continued:
"I shall take a very close and personal interest in whether that target will be met. It will be in nobody's interest, least of all mine, to press the start button to begin the process and then to discover the applications are routinely not taking two months".--[Official Report, 16 June 1999; Vol. 333, c. 475.]
However, tonight, the Home Secretary is presenting us with exactly that scenario. He says that, come what may, he will press the start button and begin the process. I have not yet heard a single assurance from Ministers about whether they can meet the two months and the six months time limits that we were assured, over and over again, they would reach. The Home Secretary tried to claim that there was never any connection between the introduction of the support system and the time targets. However, the Home Office document, "Asylum Seekers Support", published in March 1999, states:
"The proposed provision is set at 70 per cent. of the equivalent income support because the asylum support scheme is intended to be on a short-term basis, safety net arrangement, and it should be possible to live on these amounts for short periods only."
There was much anxiety and concern about the support arrangements among my Labour colleagues and, over and over again, the Home Secretary reassured people that the
arrangements were meant to be only short term. However, he now wants to strike out Lords amendment No. 135, and he cannot provide us with a single, practical assurance that those targets will be met.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |