Clause 34 - Asylum-seeker: form of support
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill
10:30 am
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.