Mr Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 207, in page 17, line 37, leave out paragraph (a).

My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) gives his apologies for not being present this morning. He is speaking at the Police Federation conference, but has assured me that he will join us this afternoon.

The amendment is designed to tease out the Government's intentions on cash only support. During proceedings on the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and ever since we have expressed our concerns about the support system for asylum seekers, which we believe fails in two respects: it has not been the most appropriate form of support for the asylum seekers themselves, and it has not been good value for money.

The clause, unamended, potentially replicates both those mistakes. It enables the Secretary the State to provide support for the living needs only of those people held within accommodation under the national asylum support system and effectively removes his ability to support individuals who have found accommodation elsewhere, usually with friends and family. That option should be retained because a significant number of individuals have found accommodation with host communities that they either knew before they came to the United Kingdom or have got to know since. The additional cash support is an important element in sustaining that.

We recognise the Government's concern that this is in some ways contrary to their dispersal strategy. They want to be able to say where asylum seekers should end up. Clearly, the cash only option allows asylum seekers to decide where they end up. They can choose to live with a particular family rather than in the accommodation to which they have been directed. We believe that the dispersal programme in general is still compatible with the cash only support system. According to the Refugee Council cash only support applications used to be almost entirely in the Greater London area but individuals are now claiming that support while living with host communities elsewhere.

Clearly, the system is not confining asylum seekers to the south-east, but it still has some way to go. It was introduced relatively recently and we do not know how it will develop over time. I certainly see individuals in Sheffield from the Somali community. Somali asylum seekers may well choose to live with the established Somali community there. That would be quite a sensible option for them and the cash only support system may allow that to happen. We need to recognise that individuals may choose to live with families and friends in established communities. Many of those established communities are in London and the south-east, but not all of them. The Government may wish to control where asylum seekers live in order to carry out their immigration functions. We believe that the reporting arrangements in the Bill and other legislation are sufficient to enable them to carry out

their function of tracking asylum seekers without having to dictate precisely where they live and allowing them some flexibility to make those decisions themselves.

We fear that if the Government proceed with the withdrawal of the cash only system immediately it may lead to more family separation. Without the additional cash contribution, families who may have recently established themselves in the United Kingdom or may still be going through some form of immigration procedure may be unable to look after another family member who wishes to stay with them. The new arrival will end up in National Asylum Support Service accommodation rather than with the family with whom they should be. In view of article 8 of the European convention on human rights and the right to family life, is it right for an individual who is in the UK and who has family members here to be disbarred financially from living with that family?

The cost question is significant. At present a single adult in the age band from 18 to 25 receives £29.89 per week in cash vouchers. That is clearly far less than providing accommodation in an accommodation centre, or indeed through the full package of benefits. We have to question the Government's motives in apparently wanting to close down a cheaper option whereby an individual provides for himself in his own community and receives what is effectively a small cash payment. Why introduce a policy that discourages that and instead directs people into a much more expensive option? Does that make sense?

We must also question the capacity of the support system if the 6,000-odd individuals who get voucher only support are directed back into the mainstream system. Do we have the ability to cope with that, given that there have been difficulties negotiating support packages for many asylum seekers throughout the country? The local authority in my constituency works as well as it can with the national support system but it is not a trivial task to find an extra 6,000 units of accommodation.

What happens if cash only support is withdrawn and significant numbers of individuals will not allow themselves to be diverted into the more expensive system but stay where they are without the cash support? Do the Government really intend that the host families and communities should pick up the entire tab? I accept that asylum seekers will have made the choice to stay there, but often the host communities are not at the top of the income tree and the people involved are already on fairly low incomes. Is it really intended to force individuals to make a choice between living with family and friends, being a burden on them, making them even poorer and perhaps creating additional social tensions as a result of that poverty, or living many miles away from those with whom they feel associated, simply for financial reasons? That is an invidious choice.

I hope that the Government will reconsider their view on the issue and keep open the additional option. The Bill as drafted does not state that it will be

withdrawn tomorrow, but there is a clear intention in the White Paper and the Bill that it will be withdrawn over time. We ask the Government to reconsider that intention, and to take note of our criticisms and the potential problems to which we have drawn attention that will result from the withdrawal of the additional flexibility.

Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)

The possible withdrawal of the support only option is highly significant. Some respected non-governmental organisations, including the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, the Refugee Council, the Law Society, Justice, the Refugee Legal Centre, the Refugee Children's Consortium, the United Nations High Commission for Refugees and the Immigration Advisory Service, have drawn attention to it in briefings. There could not be a more comprehensive or authoritative list of NGOs, all of which are worried about the proposal.

The clause allows the Secretary of State to make an order restricting the provision of essential living needs to those asylum seekers provided with accommodation by the Secretary of State, which seems to compel asylum seekers to accept dispersal. Taken as a whole, the clause would abolish the current option of applying for, and receiving, National Asylum Support Service subsistence support only, that is, without receiving NASS-provided accommodation on dispersal. The NGOs consider that unfair, unjust and counter-productive. In some cases, it could result in the undesirable separation of asylum seekers from friends or relatives able to accommodate them but not to support them financially, causing unnecessary distress to the asylum seekers concerned and increased accommodation costs to NASS.

In other cases, the provision could result in the denial of all welfare support to those asylum seekers who, for understandable reasons, prefer to stay with friends or relatives rather than being dispersed. For example, NASS does not make special provision for disabled asylum seekers, or those suffering severe illness. Citizens advice bureaux have reported being approached by individuals wanting to remain with friends or relatives rather than being dispersed. Nearly 40 per cent. of more than 65,000 asylum seekers and dependants currently supported by NASS have opted to receive subsistence support only. Accordingly, the number of individuals who would be adversely affected by the provision is substantial.

Justice is only one of the groups to have raised the issue. It said:

''Where it is possible for applicants to remain in the community they should not be prevented from doing so''.

I hope that the Government will be able to respond helpfully.

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

I understand hon. Members' concerns, but we believe that taking a power to end the provision of subsistence only support in all cases is wholly consistent with our approach of developing a more managed asylum policy and better ways of keeping contact with asylum seekers during the process. That will facilitate speedier consideration and lead to what all Committee members have said that they want—a more effective end-to-end process

for those who apply for asylum. We have made it clear that if the pilots work and accommodation centres prove to be a great success, we may bring an end to the dispersal system. If that happens, we intend to offer support only in those accommodation centres. The Bill is drafted for not only the pilot but any potential result of the pilot, which may see the emergence of a new system. That is partially what the clause is about.

Under current arrangements, asylum seekers may stay with friends or relatives and claim support to cover essential living needs. However, in such cases we have no control over where they live, which makes it difficult to maintain contact. Large numbers of those who take up cash only support remain in London and the south-east. As of December 2001, 17,000 of the 25,000-plus asylum seekers taking subsistence only support were living in London, which is 70 per cent. That frustrates the dispersal process, whatever the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) says.

Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)

I understand the point about keeping track of asylum seekers, but will the Government consider tabling an amendment on Report to grant the facility provided that the Secretary of State knows the address and the person continues to reside there throughout the process?

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

We want the enabling power in clause 34 to create the potential to move away from cash only support, but it is not our immediate intention. We would not do it next week, and it would not make sense to do it until we had managed to regionalise NASS, if we are dealing with the current dispersal system, and we had in place more effective mechanisms for reporting, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam mentioned. Although I cannot tell the Committee when it will be, we foresee a time, if the reporting system is running properly and accommodation centres are working effectively, when we may wish to cut off the cash only option.

Mr Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat)

Will the Minister clarify whether, under the current arrangements, when people want to stay in London or the south-east with family or friends—the 17,000 she mentioned—we simply withdraw cash only support and there is no power to force them to disperse? Do they simply live without the £29-odd coming into that family unit?

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

People are expected to co-operate with the asylum process. The only people who can apply to NASS for support—including the 17,000 who have chosen to frustrate the dispersal process and remain in London—are those who are destitute. If they decide that they do not want to apply for NASS support, or are not destitute and can afford to choose where to live, they move out of the system and are not offered NASS support.

There may be a point in the future—when reporting is up and running, accommodation centres are more often used than now or we wish to make dispersal more effective—when the power allows us to decide not to have a cash only option. We are nowhere near that point, but the provision will allow us to move that way as the system evolves. In deciding whether and when to exercise the power, we must consider all relevant factors. Some will be administrative and some

will relate to how our systems have developed to facilitate more effective dispersal or use of accommodation centres. Of course, we also have to consider our obligations under the European convention on human rights.

We anticipate that any increase in accommodation costs as a result of withdrawing cash only support would be offset by savings delivered elsewhere by a more effective asylum system. We would not wish to move towards the cut-off of choice if we were not convinced that we could cope administratively with its effects. We cannot accept the amendment because it would take away our power to switch off cash only support, but I hope that I have given the Committee some idea of the Government's thinking on the use of this enabling power.

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

I have listened carefully to the Minister, but I remain concerned about the provision. I understand that the intention is not to implement it immediately, but I am concerned about her description of people who take the support only option as having chosen to ''frustrate the dispersal process''. I should be grateful if she would provide evidence of that. I believe that the motivation of the overwhelming majority of people who take the support only option is to remain with family and friends in particular communities. Let us not attribute to them a negative motivation that is undermining policy.

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

I was talking about the effect of the choice and not saying that individuals were deliberately choosing to frustrate the process. Of the 40 per cent. of all asylum seekers who go for the cash only option, 70 per cent. remain in London. The dispersal system was introduced because of the enormous pressure on Greater London and the south-east, where asylum seekers were at that time deciding to stay. However, given those figures, the fact is that dispersal has been only partly effective in alleviating the pressure on the south-east and especially Greater London.

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

I understand that point, but it is somewhat undermined by the fact that the proportion is falling. Clearly, if communities are created in places where they did not previously exist, and they take root, families will seek to unite and friends and communities will seek to gather around those new locations. That is precisely the point of dispersal. During the relatively short time for which that system has been operating, and despite the fact that it has been least effective in the first year or two because of teething problems, the proportion has fallen from 100 to 70 per cent., which is quite a hopeful sign.

I believe that the overwhelming majority of people who take the support only option will continue to seek accommodation with family and friends and to unite families—husbands and wives and so on—and will do so without financial support. Withdrawal of the option will increase the stress on refugee communities and the destitution in inner-city communities, with various

consequences that we will find it extremely difficult to deal with.

The Minister advanced an argument about tracking individuals. What evidence is there of a disproportionate failure to comply with the asylum process among people who take the support only option? I understand that two communities in particular—Turkish and Sri Lankan—are most likely to take up that option, while members of the Chinese community tend to go to family and friends but not to take the cash support. Is there evidence—if there were, I would be influenced by it—that those two communities are disproportionately hard to track and fail to comply with decisions?

In this respect, as in so many others, we must continue to ensure that the decision-making process works quickly and efficiently. In the case of the Sri Lankan community, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State says is one of the two communities that are most likely to take the support only option, non-compliance has been a problem and a barrier to effective decision making, although the situation is improving. In the nine months up to September 2001, over 1,400 Sri Lankan refusals—claims that failed on non-compliance grounds—were overturned on appeal. If we could focus on the communities receiving support only and ensure that we overcome the non-compliance problems, we would be out of the woods. People would not stay for a significant period on the support only basis and we would be able to move them through the system quickly. The efficiency of the system is the heart of the problem.

I believe that I made the case last week, but I remain concerned that the provision will not have the effect that the Government seek. It will increase poverty and destitution, particularly in London. I ask the Minister to consider whether greater flexibility in the Bill is possible.

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

My hon. Friend's position is not necessarily as incompatible with the Government's as she believes. This is an enabling power. I realise that the Committee must have a certain amount of trust that the Government will not use it tomorrow. We are taking a broad power that enables us at some time in the future, as the system evolves and if it seems appropriate, to cut off this option. We do not intend to do so immediately. We could focus on particular communities, as my hon. Friend suggested, before we even consider using the enabling power. Indeed, we would have to come back to Parliament to trigger it.

My hon. Friend's points are not necessarily incompatible with the clause, but there would have to be some trust that sudden decisions would not be taken at Government level that would rule out some of her important suggestions—namely, whether we could improve contact with particular communities and whether reporting would deal with tracking the asylum claims of those on cash only support.

Mr Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat)

I have a great deal of sympathy with the points made by the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) about the effect on communities already here. Is it the Minister's intention

to prevent new people from taking the cash only option or to withdraw it from those already claiming it? That is an important distinction.

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

We do not want to introduce the enabling power overnight for everyone. If we decided to move towards it in the future, we would have to consider the practicalities. The first step would be to remove cash only support from all asylum seekers coming through at the time, and then to consider whether we wished to withdraw it gradually from those who have already taken advantage of it. The hon. Gentleman will know that we still have the remnants of the interim scheme, where decisions tend to be about practical administrative doability rather than policy neatness.

Mr Parmjit Dhanda (Gloucester, Labour)

Does the withdrawal of the support only option apply only to centres such as London or also to dispersal areas? I have had representations from a refugee organisation in Gloucestershire, which says that many people there receive support only.

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

We know from the figures I gave earlier that 70 per cent of those involved in choosing the cash only option—that is what we must call it now that the vouchers have gone—live in Greater London, and 30 per cent live elsewhere, although I cannot give my hon. Friend a rundown of precisely where. The clause allows us to remove all cash only options and require people either to be dispersed if they require assistance from NASS or to go into accommodation centres.

At the beginning of this process, ahead of the pilot, we do not know how the accommodation centre proposals will develop. We must have the flexibility to change the old system to make it compatible with new developments. It is an enabling power that would in theory remove all other options, but as I said to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam, if we choose to use it, we will consider carefully how to implement it. It would be sensible to introduce it for all new asylum claims.

Mr Parmjit Dhanda (Gloucester, Labour)

Are we talking about removing cash only support for people already in dispersal areas such as Gloucestershire?

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

I have had a figure put in front of me, which I will read out to the Committee in case it is helpful. The number of people given cash only support in the south-west region in December last year was 350—I hope that Gloucester is in the south-west region. I hope that that gives my hon. Friend an idea of the numbers involved. The problem is far greater in central London, and we need to consider the effect of the provision on dispersal. Were we to exercise the power fully, it would end cash only support, but as I hope I have made clear, we do not intend to do that immediately. Were we to decide to trigger it, we would consider the practicalities of doing so.

Mr Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat)

I am interested in what the Minister says about adopting a pragmatic approach. I hope that she is sincere in that, because I suspect that from a pragmatic perspective the withdrawal of the cash only option will prove counter-productive, for many of the reasons given by the hon. Member for Regent's Park

and Kensington, North. I fear that the withdrawal of the cash only option would not disperse the 17,000 asylum seekers in London who are receiving it: it would merely leave them in London, but poorer. I hope that the Minister will consider seriously whether that would be the net result before proceeding with the provision.

The other valid concern, which was raised by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda), is the possibility that the 350 asylum seekers receiving cash only support in Gloucestershire might want to be supported by larger communities in London if cash only support were withdrawn. They may be able to live in Gloucestershire under the cash only option because they are staying with a Chinese or a Sri Lankan family, for example, but that might no longer be sustainable if the support were withdrawn. They might not want another accommodation option and might withdraw back to London. All those issues need to be looked at before proceeding down the route of the clause, which is fraught with difficulties.

The Minister referred to savings delivered elsewhere, which was a great phrase in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. There is always a perception that savings will materialise from one part of the system to enable us to put more into another part. The Government admitted in the proceedings of the previous Act that while the NASS accommodation options would be much more expensive than the benefits system, they would give an overall net saving because the time scales would be reduced: asylum seekers would use them for only a few months rather than for long periods. That has not happened.

Mr Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow, Labour)

Is it not logical that there will not be savings, because the only way that the power could be introduced would be for NASS accommodation centres to offer accommodation to every asylum seeker? NASS would have to provide at least 17,000 more places, because otherwise we would cut off assistance for people who do not have any other means of support.

Mr Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat)

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. Thinking it through, if the assumption is that there would still be savings with the more expensive option of NASS accommodation for asylum seekers when they arrive in the country, because the time scale would be shorter, giving an individual a cash only option with a shorter time scale would be cheaper still. Overall savings are possible, although I am sceptical. Until I see savings materialise from the 1999 Act, I will not predict savings from this legislation. It would always be cheaper to go for the cash only option. It stands to reason, as we can see the figures.

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

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there would be far less reason to trigger the powers if we could reach the stage where reporting was working effectively, and if we could demonstrate that cash only asylum claims were dealt with as quickly as those in accommodation centres? We have yet to trial accommodation centres, and we may be able to make real savings and take speedy and effective decisions. I certainly hope so. It is wise to have the power to phase out other parts of previous systems in favour of more effective ones. I do not yet know

whether there is potential in accommodation centres for achieving that. The pilot will show that. However, he must admit that having the power to respond appropriately is reasonable at this juncture.

Mr Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat)

I appreciate the Minister's reasonable and rational clarification. She appears to be suggesting that there may be no need to withdraw the option if the reporting arrangements work and the claims can be processed reasonably quickly, and if we can therefore deal with the clustering of asylum seekers who are taking the option. That is helpful, if that is what she is saying. However, there is a fear that the Government would be cutting their nose off to spite their face if they withdrew this option, which may be cheaper and better for asylum seekers, in order to answer criticisms about dispersal and to try to speed up the process. We fear that that would be a blunt instrument, and would not work.

However, I appreciate the tone of the Minister's response and her assurance that this is an enabling power and that the Government will carefully consider the circumstances. I do not wish to press the matter to a vote, although we will continue to examine carefully how the Government take the debate forward. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.