| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
24 Feb 2003 : Column 12—continued
Active Community Unit
6. Ross Cranston (Dudley, North): If he will make a statement on the work of his Department's active community unit. [98762]
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): We appointed a new director of the active community unit—Helen Edwards—at the beginning of last year. With Ministers, she has now undertaken a full review of our relationship with the voluntary and community sector and has identified four key principles—capacity and development at local level; community involvement; partnerships between Government and the voluntary and community sector; and a modern legal framework for the sector. Those matters are now being put in place.
Ross Cranston : I commend my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for his commitment to building and enhancing the capacity of communities—especially deprived or ethnic minority communities. However, notions such as "active community" can seem a bit high-falutin' unless they mean something on the ground. What will this particular programme mean to people in, for example, my constituency?
Mr. Blunkett: First, the programme will mean an extra £93 million over the next three years, investing directly in those organisations that are engaged in volunteering. In my hon. Friend's constituency, that currently involves a Sikh project, gaining support in the community for work with young people to the tune of just under £50,000, and £133,000 from a major youth project in the west midlands is going into his constituency. That is the answer to the sedentary comment made by a Liberal Democrat who shouted, "And that is just in his constituency."
Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet): With regard to the compact and codes of practice relating to bringing together the voluntary and community sectors, has the Home Secretary implemented the recommendation of the Treasury report last year that a senior official should be appointed in each Department to encourage their effective implementation?
Mr. Blunkett: Yes, as part of a cross-cutting review agreed between the Treasury and ourselves and as part of the spending review, it was agreed, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, that such individuals would be
designated. That has now been achieved, and we are intent on ensuring that that collaborative venture across Departments, including funding identified by Departments, should work effectively.Asylum Seekers
7. Miss Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone and The Weald): What target he has set for the removal of failed asylum seekers. [98763]
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): Within weeks of taking over as Home Secretary, I made it clear to the House that the original intention, the technical commitment that had been made in relation to the number of people who could be removed from the country was not feasible. I indicated then that it would be more sensible to have commitment related to a proportion of the intake and that we should switch our energies into preventing entry by strengthening our borders. That is precisely what I have done in the past 20 months.
Miss Widdecombe : Is the Home Secretary aware that that answer is both evasive and pathetic? Will he please tell us why the much-trumpeted target of 30,000 removals a year was, in his own words, not feasible? Was it simply because his Department failed? Was it because he did not resource the immigration service properly? Or was it because the figure was never realistic, but a sham and grab for a headline? The Select Committee on Home Affairs was distinctly told that there never has been, and there is no immediate prospect of there being, sufficient detention space to support such a target. Was it not nonsense from the start?
Mr. Blunkett: The answer to the first part of the question is no. The answer to the rest of the question is that I cannot match the right hon. Lady's breathtaking audacity. I cannot match the idea that someone who was in the Home Office who saw the number of staff cut and a failure to put in place the removal centre facilities, who had no programme for accommodation centres, who did not have induction centres, who failed to reach an accommodation with France in terms of moving border controls and who achieved less than half the number of removals that we are now achieving can actually stand up in the Chamber and suggest that we are failing compared with her pathetic efforts.
Mr. Chris Mullin (Sunderland, South): I endorse everything that the Home Secretary said in relation to that previous answer, but may I caution him to avoid becoming impaled on any more unrealistic targets in relation to asylum and put it to him that, bearing in mind all the complexities that surround the subject, what is needed is clear and consistent progress, not a big bang, which will inevitably end in tears?
Mr. Blunkett: I know that I am in favour of tougher sentences, but I have never been in favour of impaling, so I am okay on the first part of the question.
[Interruption.] But I have one or two people in my sights, in a manner of speaking. I take my hon. Friend's advice to heart and believe that his is a very wise counsel.
Mr. Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden): Does the Home Secretary accept that if the process of deportation is put off until people have put down roots in this country, had children and become part of the community, deportation becomes inhumane? Should we not therefore resile from an agreement that gives every inhabitant of the globe who can find ways to this shore the right to claim asylum, appeal against being refused that claim, take out a judicial review and subsequently claim under human rights legislation—securing benefits all that time—until they have been here so many years that it is inhumane to deport them? Should we not resile from that agreement, as my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) suggests, if we cannot renegotiate it?
Mr. Blunkett: On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I have every sympathy. The longer that people are here, the more difficult it is to remove and uproot them. We should therefore seek to avoid that at all costs. On the second part of the question, a large number of the layers to which the right hon. Gentleman referred have been or will shortly be removed under the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. I am seeking, week by week, to implement an Act that we had to struggle to get through both this House and the other place because Conservative Members opposed us at every end and turn.
Mr. Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow): Will my right hon. Friend consider what can be done to improve the co-ordination between the various parts of the Home Office? Does he accept that it is very unsatisfactory when a decision is made and apparently nothing happens on enforcement? In fact, what happens is that the National Asylum Support Service will tell a provider to cut off someone's support. The provider therefore has the problem of dealing with that individual rather than the Home Office, which took the decision that the asylum claim should be rejected.
Mr. Blunkett: Bearing in mind that there is a 28-day period in which support continues, I accept the thrust of my hon. Friend's question entirely. There must be a more efficient, more effective and seamless removals policy in which, when support is removed, advice, support and, when appropriate, removal takes place immediately. That is fair for the individuals and fair for the country.
Mr. Simon Burns (West Chelmsford): Question 8.
Mr. Humfrey Malins (Woking): I am not sure that the question was that good anyway. We might have done better without it. Does the Home Secretary believe—I would be grateful for a frank answer—that the Government will ever remove those 250,000 or more
failed asylum seekers, who, since Labour came to power five years ago, should have been removed but have not been?
Mr. Blunkett: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman thought of a question, as we might have been waiting all afternoon otherwise. The truth, as he knows well, is that the figures that are plucked out of the air are hypothetical, and we know perfectly well, as per the earlier question, that there are real difficulties when people have remained in the country for a lengthy period. That is why preventing people from clandestinely entering our shores is the top priority. Ensuring that we turn them round and remove them when they are clandestine is the key. That is the answer to the question of how long is a piece of string—as long as the hon. Gentleman wishes to cut it.
Illegal Land Occupation
8. Mr. Simon Burns (West Chelmsford): If he will make a statement on the powers of the police to move on people who illegally occupy land and open spaces. [98764]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): Section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 gives the police, subject to certain conditions, the power to remove people who are trespassing with intent to take up residence, and who have been asked to leave by a landowner. We intend to legislate to strengthen further these powers. We will do so as soon as parliamentary time allows.
Mr. Burns : I thank the Minister for that answer and assure him that my constituents living in the Cranham road and Little Waltham part of Chelmsford will warmly welcome that. Will he accept that there are individuals who are prepared to defy court injunctions, abuse the appeal procedures, string out defiance of planning law, and build on and occupy greenfield sites against the law? The quicker that something is done to empower local residents to be able to reclaim their land and their communities from those people, the better.
Mr. Ainsworth: I completely agree that unauthorised camping, and the antisocial and criminal behaviour that is often linked with it, is a problem, and we intend to tackle it. The police need effective eviction powers to take prompt action against unauthorised sites, particularly those that create a nuisance such as the hon. Gentleman describes, and we intend to introduce such powers.
Mr. Bill O'Brien (Normanton): My hon. Friend is correct in suggesting that new legislation will strengthen the powers of the police, but there is another side to the equation. My constituents complain about the rubbish and mess left on sites after travellers have occupied them for a few days, but there are no powers of redress, so any cost falls on the local authority and becomes, in turn, a charge on council tax payers. Has my hon. Friend any
suggestions or ideas as to how people can be held responsible for the expense of clearing sites once they have left?
Mr. Ainsworth: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that there are members of the travelling community who behave reasonably and appropriately, but nuisances such as those that he mentions are a great problem. We should expect the same standards from the travelling community that we expect from other people. As well as the power to evict, we need the ability to tackle antisocial behaviour by the travelling community, and we are considering that. It is possible to impose antisocial behaviour orders on travellers as well as other members of the community.
Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath): We welcome the Minister's announcement that he proposes to toughen up the powers still further. He is aware that when we were in government, we sought, in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, to toughen the law. Does he accept, however, that unscrupulous travellers and gypsies have found loopholes in the legislation introduced by Governments of both parties, and that if they are to be closed it is necessary for Ministers such as himself to agree to meet Members from both sides of the House, leaders of local authorities and leading local authority officers to ensure that the new law, which we hope to help draft, will be effective? Does he recognise that in constituencies such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and my own some travellers are trying to get round the law by buying land and then breaching planning laws?
Mr. Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman is right, and we must consider planning issues as well as police powers of eviction . He will know that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is looking at planning law. He is as entitled as anybody else to have an input into that process. I have always been prepared to consider his proposals on this matter as on any other, and if he has suggestions that relate to Home Office responsibilities in these matters, I will be happy to listen to him. I am sure that he is capable of making his own representations on the planning side of this question.
Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock): May I take the Minister back to his initial reply? He said that the police can evict travellers at the request of a landowner. Part of the problem is that sometimes the landowner will not make such a request because he wants planning permission, and he spitefully hopes that local authorities will give up and grant it in exasperation. Will my hon. Friend consider, as part of the review, introducing a power for local authorities to ask the police to evict people, in appropriate circumstances and in the absence of a reasonable request by the landowner?
Mr. Ainsworth: I am sure my hon. Friend agrees that, in the first instance, we need adequate sites for the travelling public. I hope that that is not controversial. However, unauthorised camping is a problem and we need to ensure that the new powers bring not only swift relief, but effective relief. We are aware that people will
find various ways around them. Trying to plug all the loopholes will not be easy, but the new proposed powers will seek to deal with that problem.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |