Clause 17 - Destitution: definition
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill
11:00 am
Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark and 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.