Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab): I want to place on record the fact that many hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned. We understand the Government's argument. We understand the way that the Minister has handled the issue and the concessions that have been made and we are grateful to the Government for them. The Minister has taken a thoughtful approach, but we are concerned about why the Government are closing down the option at this stage. To be honest, most of us have found from our surgeries that the minor things display dignity or the lack of dignity and humanity or the lack of humanity: the child who cannot take in 50p for the school trip, or the parent who cannot buy their child a cup of tea when they are out shopping, because they have not got the cash. Such things will not be covered by vouchers and the other means of support. I realise that the system may apply for a limited period before people leave the country, but we cannot understand the Government's attempt to end that expression of humanity to those people and not to offer them that opportunity.
Mr. McNulty: Again, I would reverse the argument. Under the NASS contracts, a substantive package of support is provided to those who find that they require section 4 support. Such support is supposed to be all-embracingand to the extent that it can be, it isfor the duration of the time before people depart. The fact that that cannot always be so led to vouchers and some additional support for food or essential toiletries. Given not least the remarks made in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, a range of issues have been raised about such support being far too narrow, even in the context of the broad package of support under section 4. That is why we have moved to providing support in kind, as well as by vouchers, with goods and services, rather than using the narrow definition of food and accommodation. That basket of support is available. That is right and proper. Equally, underlying that
Dr. Evan Harris: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. McNulty: I will give way in a moment. It would be useful to let me finish the sentence.
Equally, underlying that, we are tryingagain, this is outwith the Lords amendmentwith the new targeted contracts to get far more direct contact with individuals on section 4 support and to get them involved in the NASS contracts. It is no longer simply the case that someone can be sent a letter in the hope that they will receive it so that they will know exactly what they need
29 Mar 2006 : Column 930
to do and in what circumstances. The whole contact management operation is getting far more sophisticated within NASS, but all those support mechanisms and contact processes relate to the departure and removal of people who have exhausted all their claims and no longer have a right or any legal locus to remain in this country. I will now give way to the hon. Gentlemanand do not make me regret it, please.
Dr. Harris: I fear that I cannot guarantee the Minister that. We all appreciate the concession that has been made, but the hon. Members for Buckingham (John Bercow) and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) were asking what the justification was for the Government to rule out cash. The Minister said that it was not about a pull factor, but in his letter to The Guardian and The Times, he said:
"Support for failed asylum seekers is limited and temporary to ensure that it does not act as an incentive to remain."
If he is not saying that that is his view, why is he ruling out cash full stop?
Mr. McNulty: The hon. Gentleman has half made me regret giving way, but his intervention gives me a chance to look at the letter again. The letter goes to exactly what I was saying. It is perfectly right and proper that there should be distinct support mechanisms for those applying for asylum in the normal fashion and for those who have exhausted every element of the processes, legal and otherwise, and have absolutely no legitimate right to be in this country. They will not be people who fear torture following removal, otherwise they would not have section 4 support. The regime can and should betaking into account the points that I made about its temporary nature to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstowdistinct from the process that everyone else is going through in the normal fashion.
That goes to the heart of the criticism and dispute about everybody being on vouchers in the first place. That was seen as penalising people who were applying for asylum in the normal way, because of the ineffectiveness and impracticalities of vouchers. We accept that point and I do not demur one ounce or jot from the reason that my right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary suggested for moving away from vouchers in the first place. However, it is not enough to pick up one little bit of an overall package for those on section 4 support. That is the point. There is an overall packageit is not just the vouchers. That package is temporary and it is about a prelude to a removal. With the extensions to the support mechanisms, for the critical reasons that hon. Members have suggested, it is right and proper to expand that provision to support in kind in goods and services. That gives us a broader sweep in relation to the gaps where a full support package of full board and accommodation cannot be provided. In that context, we will be in a far happier position in relation to the support mechanisms put in place under section 4 if we accept the Lords amendment. I offer that to the House and commend it.
For the reasons that I have suggested, we will resist amendment (a), which extends the support to cash, and we will certainly dismiss, or resistI have dismissed it alreadyamendment (b) from the Conservatives about the report and so on. In substance, all those elements are
29 Mar 2006 : Column 931
being carried out in various ways by accepting the Lords amendment and by our regular reporting on the asylum statistics.
The matter is very sensitive. I concur with what people said about the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow. I was going to make a nice joke about Walthamstow market, but I will pass on that because we are too serious. I commend most of the other contributions, save that of the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire), who really should not have bothered, in what is a very serious debate. I commend the Lords amendment to the House and ask it to resist amendments (a) and (b).
Mr. Gerrard: I listened carefully to the Minister's reply, but I have to say that I do not understand his reasoning. I will withdraw the amendment purely on the grounds that I do not believe that parliamentary arithmetic suggests that it will be carried. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:
The House divided: Ayes 89, Noes 308.
Lords amendment No. 18 agreed to [Special Entry].
Lords amendments Nos. 19 to 40 agreed to [One with Special Entry].
Next Section | Index | Home Page |