| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Hylton: I am grateful to those noble Lords who have helpfully spoken in support of my amendment. I am equally grateful to the Minister for the discussions that he says he will have. They will be parallel to those with the Legal Services Commission, which are already on offer, concerning accommodation centres. This may well be a matter to which we have to return on Report, but meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 139A not moved.]
Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 140:
- Page 19, line 38, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
The noble Lord said: The amendment would change the parliamentary procedure for making orders under Clause 37 of the Bill from the negative resolution procedure to the draft affirmative resolution procedure. It will ensure that before any order aimed at ending cash only support for asylum seekers, whether in all cases or in specified circumstances, can be made and put into effect, it will have to be laid in draft before both Houses of Parliament for approval.
That change fulfils the assurance given on Report in the other place that a suitably worded amendment to achieve the same effect as an amendment proposed by the honourable member for Walthamstow would be tabled when the Bill came before this House.
I hope that the proposed amendment will do much to assuage the concerns expressed about the powers that the Government are taking in Clause 37. It means that the Secretary of State can exercise those powers only when and if he has obtained the approval of both Houses to the terms of any order that he wishes to make. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 37, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Dubs: My purpose in opposing the Motion is to seek more information from my noble friend. Although I welcomed Amendment No. 140, which means that the Secretary of State will need an affirmative resolution, he is still taking powers to limit entitlement to social security for asylum seekers in certain circumstances. The present position—before the Bill is enacted—is that asylum seekers can be dispersed and receive support plus accommodation but if they choose not to be dispersed and instead live with friends and family they receive support only. It is the second option of receiving support only that will be removed by the clause if the Secretary of State decides to give effect to it.
That is a retrograde step. Some asylum seekers have friends and family and find it much more satisfactory—as we all would—to stay with them
This is not a satisfactory situation. It could result in the separation of families, it could result in destitution and it could have an adverse effect on refugee community organisations which provide support for members of their communities who arrive in this country as asylum seekers. They would have to provide much more support for those asylum seekers who chose to stay with their family and friends but who no longer were in receipt of any government assistance. I hope that the Government will think again because I do not believe that this is a helpful way forward.
Lord Greaves: On behalf of these Benches I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in his proposal that Clause 37 should not stand part of the Bill.
The clause sets out a drastic step in view of the existing situation in terms of NASS support for asylum seekers. No doubt the Minister will have the exact figures, but a large proportion of asylum seekers presently take the option of support only and then find their own accommodation. It will be interesting to hear the Minister's justification for removing that option.
At the moment many asylum seekers take the support-only option because if they are dispersed, they may be sent to the north of England, to Scotland or to the West Country, while generally their friends and family members live in the South East. Usually asylum seekers take the option of living with their relatives and friends, some of whom may be settled refugees from the same part of the world. There is a strong argument for the advantages of those arrangements in terms of the welfare of asylum seekers themselves. Rather than being placed in a terraced house in Nelson, Lancashire, or a tower block in Liverpool, living with people they have never met before, they live instead with people they know who can provide them with moral, welfare and psychological support. That is a valid option.
I should like to ask the Minister the following questions: if this proposal had been enacted over the past two years, what proportion of those who presently accept support-only assistance from NASS do the Government estimate would have opted for full assistance, which would cost more than the existing arrangements? What proportion do the Government estimate will opt for accepting no assistance whatever and for living as best they can off the resources of other people? Unless the Government have made those assessments, then they do not understand the implications of their policy.
Earl Russell: I have promised the Minister that I shall not say any more about the denial of support tonight and I shall not do so. However, I will say this. If you have seen practically every relative shot by Serbs, then you do tend to cling rather desperately to any surviving relatives that you may have in this country. That is an emotion that I think it would be unwise to deny.
Lord Hylton: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for proposing that this clause should not stand part. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, pointed out that many current asylum seekers receive cash-only support. There is good evidence to show that something in the order of 40 per cent of the 76,000 asylum seekers currently supported by NASS take that option. That represents a large number of people.
I also understand that in May in another place, Ministers stated that it would be a long time before Clause 37 would come into effect. How long is that long time likely to be? It is important that we have some idea of the timeframe and the conditions that will have to be satisfied before the clause will take effect.
Lord Avebury: The Explanatory Notes are silent on this clause. They give no indication of the motivation behind it. I understand that the Government's official position is that the support only decisions have yet to be made. There is no timescale involved but they want the power in Clause 37 should it prove necessary, in undefined circumstances, to invoke it.
A leaked memorandum from Downing Street was published in the Guardian last June indicating that the Government intend to remove support only some time this coming autumn. If that is the case and the Government have already made the decision, they had better come clean now. If they do not and what was in the leaked memo is put into effect this autumn, Parliament will have a serious grievance against the Government for withholding material facts from the House when they came to the decision to allow this clause to remain part of the Bill.
Lord Filkin: The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is right, at least in the respect that this concerns the creation of a power to remove or restrict an asylum seeker's ability to choose to receive essential living needs support without accommodation.
Under current arrangements, asylum seekers who do not wish to take NASS accommodation are able to claim support to cover essential living needs and to live with family or friends. NASS has no control over where they live and few means of checking whether they are living at the address they state. This makes it difficult to maintain contact, which is an important part of the new, more managed asylum process.
It has proved to be the case that very large numbers of those who take up living needs only support remain in London and the South East, often in overcrowded and unsatisfactory accommodation in areas where large numbers of asylum seekers are placing great pressure on local services. This is very problematic and
As we move to a more managed asylum process—and this undoubtedly will be a progressive rather than a rapid process—with improved contact throughout the process and the introduction of accommodation centres, it is important that asylum seekers are not able to evade this more managed environment by choosing essential needs only support. The ability to restrict such support, at least in principle, is therefore an important feature of the new asylum process.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked about the proportion of people receiving cash only support out of the total on NASS support. The latest figure to March 2002 is that 30,000 are receiving subsistence only support out of a total of 74,000. We seem to have similar figures on that.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, understands that, because of the time of night and the hypothetical nature of his question about the proportion who would opt for NASS accommodation if it was the only option available—I think that was the question—there is no realistic answer.
"(b) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament."
10.15 p.m.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page