Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 173, in page 10, line 17, leave out 'and' and insert 'or'.

Mr Eric Illsley (Barnsley Central, Labour)

With this we may take the following amendments: No. 174, in page 10, line 21, leave out 'and' and insert 'or'.

No. 175, in page 10, line 32, leave out subsection (5).

No. 176, in page 10, line 36, leave out paragraph (a).

No. 133, in page 10, line 39, at end insert

'having regard to all the circumstances'.

Government amendment No. 104.

No. 134, in page 10, line 43, at end insert

'having regard to all the circumstances'

Government amendment No. 105.

No. 209, in clause 35, page 18, line 31, leave out 'and' and insert 'or'.

No. 210, in page 18, line 35, leave out 'and' and insert 'or'.

No. 212, in page 19, line 7, leave out subsection (7).

No. 213, in page 19, line 11, leave out paragraph (a).

Government amendments Nos. 120 to 122.

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

I shall speak to the appropriate amendments in the group. Amendment No. 133 is a joint effort between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. The group also includes Government amendments, which appear straightforward and are hopefully uncontroversial. The amendments from No. 173 onwards relate to clause 17, but have the same effect on later clauses, particularly clause 35. They would affect the definition of destitution.

Under the clause:

''Where a person has dependants, he and his dependants are destitute for the purpose of this Part if they do not have and cannot obtain—

(a) adequate accommodation, and

(b) food and other essential items.''

Instead of making the effect accumulative—people are considered destitute if they do not have accommodation and food and other items—the amendment would qualify it, so that people are considered destitute if they do not have either adequate accommodation or food and other essential items. People frequently have accommodation, because they are staying with friends or family, but they cannot reasonably expect their friends or family to maintain them. It would relieve the burden on the state if accommodation did not have to be provided. It is nonsense to ask the state to look after people when others are willing to do so, but some recently arrived families may not have much in the way of financial resources.

We shall debate similar issues in part 3. If the Government really intend to introduce these provisions, it would appear to be a draconian and unsympathetic Treasury-driven policy. To qualify for support, one has to lack accommodation and food and other essential items. I hope that the Minister will soon assure us that that is not the intended policy and that it will be changed. In previous legislation, an either/or position was the prerequisite and trigger for providing support and I hope that we can return to that.

The change has been criticised by various organisations that provide advice. The Immigration Law Practitioners Association and the Refugee Council have both criticised the phasing out of subsistence support and the Immigration Advisory Service made similar points, stating:

''We deprecate the proposal that asylum seekers should not be allowed to receive NASS support only rather than both support and accommodation as well. This will prevent asylum seekers remaining within their communities, create additional tensions, add considerable cost to the system, make integration of refugees more difficult and lead to social exclusion.''

The figures show that 20 per cent. of applicants can be or are accommodated with their families or in the community: they therefore receive help with cash, but not accommodation. They are given help to live, but do not need help to be accommodated.

Taking away the option is far from sensible. We have three basic ways of dealing with asylum seekers: in accommodation centres, where everything is provided on a trial basis; under the dispersal system, where accommodation is provided with subsistence but not in an accommodation centre; and with family and friends in communities, where accommodation is offered and the state does not have to pick up that obligation but where subsistence will be needed to help to foot the bills. Amendment No. 174 would have a similar effect, as would those grouped with it that relate to later clauses.

The second type of amendment is evidenced by amendment No. 175, which would remove clause 17(5), which states:

''The Secretary of State may by regulations specify items which are or are not to be treated as essential items for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2).''

This is a probing amendment, because the Bill contains no definition of an essential item. I think that the Minister appreciates that it would be helpful to clarify what that means. Obviously, there will be regulations—the sooner we see them, the better—and we will seek to make them subject to affirmative, rather than negative, resolution.

Similarly, amendment No. 176 relates to clause 17(6), which states:

''The Secretary of State may by regulations . . . provide that a person is not to be treated as destitute for the purposes of this Part in specified circumstances''.

Again, this is a probing amendment, to discover what the specified circumstances might be. We ought to be told.

Amendment No. 133, which is supported by Conservative Members, would simply add a phrase that would ensure that all an asylum seeker's circumstances are taken into account, not only the

income that they are expected to have, because some people may not have what others have. I am sure that the Government understand the implications of that. Amendment No. 134 would have the same effect.

Finally, amendments Nos. 209, 210 and 212 make a similar point to that raised in the first group of amendments, although they relate to later clauses in the Bill. Policy on subsistence is a central issue, and I hope that we can retain all three options, with full Government support.

Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)

Amendments Nos. 133 and 134 are probing amendments that relate to drafting. By adding the words

''having regard to all the circumstances'',

we widen the clause to require and enable a full review of all the evidence that is available. I hope that the Minister will accept that there is some merit in that.

Ms Karen Buck (Regent's Park & Kensington North, Labour)

I support the amendment, which presses the Government on whether we should withdraw support-only arrangements. I have made representations on this subject on several occasions and seek some reassurance from the Government.

As a London Member of Parliament, my experience leads me to think that there are two potential consequences of withdrawing the support-only option. It will either increase the total cost of service provision, because of the likelihood that people who are currently receiving the minimum level of support will go into accommodation centres, or intensify the poverty of those who are providing support to members of their families or extended communities in their own homes.

I refer to a case that was brought to a local solicitor of a mother and a daughter who sought asylum from Iran following the death in prison of the girl's father. They were dispersed by NASS to Glasgow, where their flat was broken into a number of times and they were the targets of racial abuse. They came back to London and presented to the Refugee Council. They were then sent to Glasgow for a second time and were again subject to harassment, so they returned to London. The daughter was in a state of nervous breakdown and had to be admitted to hospital for mental health treatment. A friend of a relative who lives in America was able to offer them, rent free, the use of a room in north London, where they have lived ever since, receiving vouchers for support.

Notwithstanding the overcrowding at the property, that has allowed them to settle. The children are now in full-time school and college and the mother is in college and receiving counselling. The friend would not have been able to offer that level of support had she also been required to feed them. In this case, the asylum-seeking family received a better, cheaper and more appropriate level of support while its claim was being considered, and the host did not suffer poverty as a consequence.

I should like some indication from the Minister that the support-only option will be bad for economic

reasons and because of the risk it poses of intensifying poverty in certain communities—it has a particular impact on Turkish and Sri Lankan families. Can the Minister give the matter sympathetic consideration?

Ms Angela Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wallasey, Labour)

I am slightly puzzled by my hon. Friend's intervention at this stage. I was expecting to have this debate on clause 34, which deals with the abolition of—or potentially gives us the power to abolish—the support-only option. This part of the Bill deals only with the definition of destitution. It does not cover that area, and it would be more sensible, if my hon. Friend does not mind, for me to return to the serious points that she has made when we debate clause 34.

There is no change in policy whatever implied in the change in wording of the definition of destitution in clause 17. We intend to use the definition in the new Act, when it reaches the statute book, in exactly the same way that we do the one in the 1999 Act. People might be suspicious because of the use of the word ''and'' rather than ''or''. The hon. Member for Woking got into some difficulty on the day of Her Majesty's jubilee speech to the two Houses, when he juxtaposed an ''or'' and an ''and''. However, in this case, there is no difference in policy.

Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)

No, no, no. It is kind of the Minister to say that I got into difficulties. I reminded the Minister at the time that I am a huge monarchist. I was enabling a debate to get under way.

Ms Angela Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wallasey, Labour)

I accept the hon. Gentleman's explanation. What I was trying to do by mentioning it was to illustrate that in that case the difference between ''and'' and ''or'' was drastic in that it removed the requirement to pledge allegiance to Her Majesty during a naturalisation ceremony. In this case, there is no difference in the way in which we intend to pursue the policy. The effect of the wording is that if a person does not have both adequate accommodation and food and other essential items, he will be seen, for the purposes of the Act, as destitute. Put another way, if he lacks either adequate accommodation or food and other essential items, he is destitute. I hope that that will calm the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey.

There is no difference in effect between the old and the new wording. I am told that the new wording was placed in the Bill to make it easier to read and more user-friendly. There is no intent on the Government's side to change the definitions of destitution that were in the 1999 Act. That demonstrates the perils of trying to introduce plain English into legislation. As soon as Government change existing wording, everyone automatically assumes that there is a sinister motive for it. It is right that, in any legislature, such sinister motives should be hunted for. I assure hon. Members that there is no difference between the old and new definitions. I am sorry if people were alarmed and thought that there was, and am glad to be able to put the record right.

Amendments Nos. 175 and 212 would prevent the Secretary of State from being able to specify by regulations the items that are or are not be treated as essential to determine whether someone is destitute.

That would lead to uncertainty, dispute and delay, and perhaps even more money for lawyers at the beginning of the process when people need to be defined as available for NASS accommodation or not.

I want to reassure the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey that the principles will remain the same. They are already enshrined in the Asylum Support Regulations 2000, which record what are not to be regarded as essential living needs. We envisage that the same list will be prescribed. For completeness, I shall say that the current list covers the cost of faxes, computer facilities, photocopying, travel except in limited circumstances, toys and other recreational items and entertainment. Without such a list, it is highly likely that confusion and disputes would arise regularly, thereby slowing down access to the system when people need it.

Some amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Woking would require the Secretary of State to have regard to all circumstances. The Government amendments give a wider discretion and achieve the same aim.

With those reassurances, I hope that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey will withdraw his amendment. We will return to the important points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North at the appropriate time.

Ms Karen Buck (Regent's Park & Kensington North, Labour)

I apologise, but as we began to discuss the widening of the definition I got the impression that this was an appropriate time to raise those concerns. I am reassured by what my hon. Friend said.

Ms Angela Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wallasey, Labour)

I assure my hon. Friend that I will come to the debate that she has opened at the appropriate time.

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

I am grateful for the Minister's response. We can return to the subject of regulations, and I want to press the case to see them as soon as possible.

It was not surprising that we opened a debate that comes under a later part of the Bill. The hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North and I conceived a definition of destitution, and the subject reappears in clause 35 under the part of the Bill on support. Clause 35 immediately follows the clause on the form of support, so they link and the same

definition applies in both. The amendments were grouped so that we took amendments to clauses 17 and 35 together. The substantive point relates to concern about NASS, and I accept that we will return to that debate.

I understand what the Minister said about wording, and I shall suggest an amendment that might make it even clearer. A reference to ''(a) or (b) or both'' might be the best way to clarify the issue. There was clearly some confusion, as I was not the only person misled by the drafting. It appears straightforward, and I can see the other interpretation, so I am not being unreasonable. However, a form of drafting could probably make the matter clear beyond doubt. I shall not ask the Minister to accept my suggestion now, but if ''destitute'' means that someone does not have accommodation, support or either, perhaps we should have that wording so that we get everything right.

One of the great battles in this place is to make legislation that we can understand and that we hope others can understand. It would be good to make some progress.

Ms Angela Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wallasey, Labour)

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. Our amendments were tabled to improve clarity. We do not appear to have achieved that, so I am reluctant to try again. However, I hope that he accepts the undertakings that I gave. I re-emphasise that there is no difference on the issue between our intentional policy in the 1999 Act and that in the Bill.

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

I am grateful, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 104, in page 10, line 41, leave out 'or assets which are' and insert 'which is'.

No. 105, in page 10, line 43, at end insert—

'( ) enable or require the Secretary of State in deciding whether a person is destitute to have regard to assets of a prescribed kind which he or a dependant of his has or might reasonably be expected to have;'.—[Angela Eagle.]

Clause 17, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.