Evan Harris (Science, Non-Departmental & Cross Departmental Responsibilities; Oxford West & Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)

I do not want to have a long debate on this matter, but I want to return to the question that this clause again raises of how people who will effectively be made destitute will be looked after. When that issue was raised during the debate on clause 37, the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality, who represents Harrow—

Tony McNulty (Minister of State (Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality), Home Office; Harrow East, Labour)

Not all of Harrow.

Evan Harris (Science, Non-Departmental & Cross Departmental Responsibilities; Oxford West & Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)

West?

Tony McNulty (Minister of State (Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality), Home Office; Harrow East, Labour)

East.

Evan Harris (Science, Non-Departmental & Cross Departmental Responsibilities; Oxford West & Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)

Harrow, East. The Minister was unwilling to engage or even to answer the basic question in relation to clause 37 about whether he expected local authorities to provide full board or vouchers. The reason why it is important to debate in Committee how people will be looked after who are made destitute by the removal of their leave under the provisions of clauses 1 and 9 together with clause 40, is that this matter was raised on Second Reading by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) and, in response to her question the Home Secretary said:

“I am certainly prepared to consider the point in Committee, but I do not accept my hon. Friend’s description of the impact of clause 37.”—[Official Report, 5 July 2005; Vol. 436, c. 199.]

Although I understand that the Committee is under some pressure of time, it would be helpful if the Minister would address the question, which was also raised by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, of how people will pay for things that are necessary for a decent and civilised existence—not just food, which can be bought with food vouchers, but essential transport costs, modest communication costs and other things such as sanitary provision. That is not an unreasonable question, and this clause, taken together with clauses 1 and 9, leaves it open and unanswered.

I accept that the Minister said that he would look at the way clause 9 would work, and I am not ungrateful for that. However, I should be grateful if the Minister would take this opportunity to address the point relating to what happens under section 4 with the operation of clause 37, because clause 40 will leave people reliant on section 4—hard case funding.

Tony McNulty (Minister of State (Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality), Home Office; Harrow East, Labour)

The only issue of substance in that regard is the difference and gap between the cancellation of leave and removal. I made it clear during the debate on clause 1 on appeals that we would examine that gap and not leave people in limbo. I am happy to give that assurance again in terms of any cancellation of leave.

I will also say that the hon. Gentleman should get his language right. These people are not “made destitute”; they make themselves destitute by not taking steps to remove themselves because they have rendered themselves illegal in terms of their presence in the UK by exhausting all other avenues. Language, as I have said on several occasions in this Committee, is important. The state is not making those individuals destitute; it is they themselves who do so, on their terms, by their choices, because they seek to continue in an illegal position in the UK. That must be an integral part of a progressive asylum process.