Clause 40 - Removal: cancellation of leave
Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill
6:30 pm
Evan Harris (Science, Non-Departmental & Cross Departmental Responsibilities; Oxford West and 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.