HC Deb 16 June 1999 vol 333 cc498-512

10.45 Pm

Mr. Mike O'Brien

I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 9, line 40, at end insert— '( ) the provision of support for asylum-seekers and their dependants under Part VI;'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 16, in page 51, line 13, at end insert— 'Secretary of State" means the Secretary of State for Social Security;'.

No. 19, in page 52, line 42, at end insert—

'(12) The Secretary of State shall within one year of this section coming into effect and every year thereafter make a report to Parliament on—

(a) the provision of support for asylum seekers and their dependants under this section; and

(b) the length of time asylum seekers wait for—

  1. (i) his determination of their application; and
  2. (ii) appeals against his decisions.'.

No. 153, in page 53, leave out lines 15 to 18 and insert— '(3) The Secretary of State may provide support under subsection (1)(a), (1)(b) or (2) above, wholly, mainly or partly by way of cash payments made (by whatever means) to the supported person or his dependants (if any).'. No. 154, in page 54, line 35, leave out ', or might reasonably be expected to be,'. No. 155, line 36, at end insert— '(3A) No personal possessions connected with marriage or religious beliefs and any other assets as are proscribed by the Secretary of State shall be taken into account under section 83(3) above.'.

Mr. O'Brien

This group of amendments deals with part VI of the Bill. Government amendment No. 30 will enable information held by police, the National Criminal Intelligence Service, the national crime squad, Customs and Excise and any person specified in an order made by the Secretary of State to be supplied to the Home Office for use in the provision of support to asylum seekers and their dependants. That will help us to identify and bring to justice those who seek to abuse the asylum support system, and allow us to receive information from other agencies, which are to be specified—such as the Benefits Agency—that we need to operate part VI of the Bill.

Although we certainly do not envisage any great use being made of the provision, it is necessary to assist in the prevention of fraud in particular cases. As the Government have stated on numerous occasions, it is intended that the power to supply information shall be operated in a manner that is consistent with other applicable legal requirements, most notably data protection legislation and article 8 of the European convention on human rights.

It may well be that, in tabling amendment No. 16, Conservative Members are trying to suggest that, against the background of the current and—perhaps thanks to the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison)— well-publicised difficulties in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, they lack some confidence in the Home Office's ability to deliver an efficient service to destitute asylum seekers.

Hon. Members will be well aware of the reasons for the problems faced by the IND, but those problems are being dealt with. On the latest figures, 67 per cent. more asylum decisions are being made this year than were made last year. Moreover, over the next three years, £120 million extra will be put into the IND' s budget. We shall also recruit hundreds more staff, and are currently actively recruiting 200 more staff members.

On Monday, the long-lost Siemens computer system arrived. However, we think that it will take five or perhaps six months of testing before we are absolutely certain that it works as it was meant to when it was signed up to in 1996.

The number of cases being processed each month by the IND has started to rise again, with the target being that, by 1 April 2001, on average, decisions will be taken within two months, and that any subsequent appeal will be determined within another four months. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has given a commitment that, with effect from 1 April 2000, decisions on the asylum claims of families with children will be delivered within two months. If that cannot be achieved, they will not be brought into the new support arrangements on that date.

Giving the Home Office responsibility for supporting asylum seekers, in addition to processing their substantive asylum claims, will create a more focused approach in meeting the needs of asylum seekers than has existed in the past, and provides an added incentive in ensuring that the targets are achieved. By placing responsibility for the new support arrangements in the hands of the Secretary of State for Social Security—as Conservative Members propose doing—that advantage would be lost. We therefore cannot accept amendment No. 16.

One of the reasons for the growth of the backlog under the previous Government was that no one really had an incentive to deal with it, as the costs were met by the Department of Social Security or by local councils. The Home Office needed to have a vested interest in clearing the backlog, but did not have one. Under the new financial arrangements, in which all funding—including support funding—will be with the Home Office, the Home Office will indeed have a vested incentive to process cases quickly and on a sustainable basis. We shall have to employ the people that we need to ensure that that objective is achieved.

It is important also that the arrangements provided by part VI of the Bill should be kept separate from the main social security system. The new system will be designed to provide support for limited periods and in different ways from the social security system to people who have distinctive needs that are quite different from those who are in the UK on a long-term basis.

Amendment No. 19, tabled by the Conservatives, appears to be directed at the commitment to reduce the time taken to reach an initial decision on asylum claims to an average of two months and the average time taken to determine an appeal to four months. Despite the problems that the IND has experienced in recent months—indeed, for the past decade—action is being undertaken to deal with the backlog, and we are making progress towards reaching our targets for processing cases.

Information on the average times in which claims are processed and appeals are determined is not published routinely, but it is in the public domain. By way of replies to parliamentary questions on the subject, which appear to be asked quite regularly, not least by the hon. Member for Hertsmere, the information can be obtained at any time by Members of Parliament. However, there is a case for the information being published on a more regular basis, and because the proposals in the amendment are not the best way of achieving that, we shall onsider other means of making the information more widely available.

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Government now publish regular bulletins on asylum and immigration trends, so one of the means that we shall consider is inserting in that statistical bulletin a category detailing how quickly decisions are made. That would go further than an annual report to Parliament, in that it would provide a more regular bulletin. I give no commitment now to introduce such a measure, but I acknowledge the argument for making the information more readily available and have no objection to doing that. Our intention is to tackle the issues and ensure that we hit our targets, and we are well prepared to be held accountable for that.

The basic safety net that the new support arrangements for asylum seekers will provide assumes that the period of time an asylum seeker needs to rely on the safety net is to be kept to a minimum. However, it must be borne in mind that, under the current arrangements, many asylum seekers receive little in the way of back-up and general assistance. Under the new arrangements, the voluntary sector will be of fundamental importance, providing a considerable degree of back-up and assistance to asylum seekers. The Bill contains provisions to encourage the voluntary sector to do that. Hon. Members may be assured that the overall conditions experienced by most asylum seekers will be improved from current standards. The rather chaotic system that we inherited left a lot to be desired, and we are strongly committed to improving it.

We went over the ground covered by the Liberal Democrats' amendment, No. 153, at some length in Committee. As I explained then, the Government's view is that the availability of cash benefits is a significant pull factor to some people, who choose to use the asylum process as a means of supporting themselves while visiting this country for reasons wholly different from a well-founded fear of persecution. I do not suggest that that is true of all asylum seekers or even of the majority, but it is true of a significant minority, and substituting vouchers for cash payments is a disincentive to those who would exploit the system.

As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already made clear, we do not believe that people who are genuinely fleeing for their lives are likely not to flee because they would enter a system in which vouchers and cash were a combined element. That would not be a factor that influenced their decision. We propose to allow £10 per person per week by way of cash, with the balance in vouchers. On the illustrative figures that we published earlier this year, a family of two adults and two children would receive £40 by way of cash and more than £50 by way of vouchers.

There might have been some confusion about the fact that there will be an element of choice for the asylum seekers. They will have a choice of accommodation plus support, or just the support. They may initially accept the accommodation, but decide not to continue with it after a while, perhaps because they have found accommodation with relatives. They may wish to move to London. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) has expressed concern about that. Provided that we have a registered address for them, they can decide whether to accept the one-off offer of accommodation and support or just the support. Some asylum seekers may choose to live with relatives in my hon. Friend's constituency. That is up to them. Our concern is that they provide us with a registered address.

Mr. Allan

It was not made clear in Committee whether the support provided to someone who lived with friends of relatives would be identical to that provided to someone living in accommodation that was provided for them.

Mr. O'Brien

The support will be paid in a different way if people are accommodated. One of the aims of the accommodation system is to provide for the heating and lighting costs, as well as other factors. Those who choose the support without the accommodation will pay their own utility costs, which will no doubt be shared if they are living with relatives. However, the offer of accommodation and support will still be open to them. They can choose whatever they feel is most appropriate.

Mr. Corbyn

The Minister seems to be saying that there would be no impediment to the continued payment of the support system apart from the housing cost if someone chose to live somewhere other than the place that they were initially allocated. Is that correct?

Mr. O'Brien

We shall offer an asylum seeker accommodation plus support. That will include payment of utilities bills and payments for various other temporary needs such as kettles, cutlery and the like. That choice remains open at all times. However, some may choose not to take that option and will live elsewhere, taking just the cash plus vouchers. The choice will be theirs and it will not be forced on them by us.

Mr. Peter Bottomley

The Home Secretary said that people who took the offer of accommodation had their utilities paid for. What happens in respect of the utilities for those who make their own accommodation arrangements? Will those people be able to uplift the standard vouchers and cash to be able to pay for their utilities themselves?

Mr. O'Brien

They will be offered accommodation plus support. If they decide not to accept that, they will have chosen to accept only vouchers plus cash. Some may choose to go one way and others another. They may change their mind at some point in the process. That will be a matter for them.

11 pm

The vouchers will be exchangeable at a wide range of outlets throughout the United Kingdom and there will be no restriction on the items for which they may be used, although we would expect them to be used only by the person or household to whom they are issued. We are actively considering the possibility of their being redeemable at charity shops.

It was pointed out in Committee—and we listened carefully—that some people may feel that clothing and other items are too expensive in supermarkets. Many people buy clothing and low-cost items at charity shops, and we are considering with the charities whether they could help by accepting vouchers.

Our aim is that the asylum seekers will be in the support arrangements on average for no more than six months, and often for much shorter periods. If they are recognised as genuine refugees under the 1951 convention, we would want that to happen as soon as possible, within two months or less; the sooner the better, from our point of view. The only restriction is the five-day period that we have agreed should be allowed for people to present their case, after which we will want to proceed to a decision unless there is good reason for not doing so, such as that the asylum seeker or his legal representative wants to provide further evidence.

Audrey Wise (Preston)

The big principles about the vouchers have already been well rehearsed, but a smaller point bothers me. The fact that they are in bigger units than our normal currency will almost inevitably cost people more. If the smallest unit is 50p, for example, is there any way of arranging that change could be given? It would not be a lot of cash, but it would save people losing some of their meagre resources.

Mr. O'Brien

In due course, we will consider the detail of the regulations. Throughout our proceedings, right from the start of the consultation process on the White Paper, we have agreed to listen to representations, and we are actively considering the point that my hon. Friend raised. The units of the voucher could be as little as 25p, and we are considering whether it would be useful to have a small amount of cash in change.

We do not want to get into a position in which people buy a newspaper to get all the cash, because that would go against the whole spirit of the exercise, but we want to take a reasonable approach. Allowing some change to be given and ensuring that the denominations are small enough is one way of trying to ensure that the system works effectively. We are continuing to listen, and I will consider the matter as we develop the criteria for the regulations.

Mr. Corbyn

What representations has the Minister had from the supermarket chains about the use of these vouchers, and are they concerned about them?

Mr. O'Brien

I am not aware that they have expressed concerns to us. I know that others have, particularly about the fact that the way in which the local authorities have run some of their voucher schemes has meant that the vouchers were restricted to particular supermarkets in an area. We want to set up a national scheme so that, if the asylum seeker has to move for a period, visit relatives, or whatever, the voucher can be used at any major national supermarket and, in due course, if we can negotiate the arrangements, with various charity organisations.

The aim is to ensure that we create a system that works and we shall be discussing closely with the supermarkets any concerns that they may have about how the system might operate. We shall be anxious to listen to them and to see whether there are ways in which we can more effectively ensure that the system deals with the proper needs of those seeking asylum.

Liberal Democrat amendment No.154 seeks to leave out the provision that would allow the new Asylum Support Directorate to make assumptions about what support might be available to an asylum seeker if he chose to seek it. We need the provision. Asylum support from the Home Office is supposed to be the last resort to prevent destitution, not the first port of call for the Imelda Marcoses or the Shahs of Iran contemplating an asylum claim.

Without the provision, we would have difficulty in asking asylum seekers what other resources or assets might be at their disposal. They may, for example, have relatives already established in this country who are offering them accommodation, so that they would need to rely on the ASD only for other support. In general, the ASD would not expect those relatives to provide essential living expenses, or anything like that. The purpose of the provision is not to attempt to offload responsibility onto any unwilling third party.

Amendment No. 155 is also unnecessary. In assessing an applicant's assets, we may wish to take into account certain valuables including, if it is a substantial amount, gold or other jewellery. That represents a significant source of wealth in some communities. However, I have made it clear that we shall not be taking into account wedding rings or personal devotional objects. That is not the objective of the exercise. That will be made clear in the regulations on the ASD support system that we shall produce in due course. We shall consult on just what to prescribe in that way in due course.

As I have already said, there are examples of people bringing in substantial amounts of gold. I have spoken to some myself. The woman to whom I spoke at Waterloo said that she was carrying the equivalent of £4,000 worth of gold. She had come from a country in some turmoil, so we usually grant asylum to its people if they apply. In many ways, it is an unsafe country. I never ask the names of people to whom I speak, so I do not know the name of the lady in question, although no doubt it would be possible to trace her. She was coming here to set up a business, but she was also fleeing from a country with a civil war; she had sold her business to come here, bringing with her the proceeds of that sale.

Someone with £4,000 is not destitute. We would expect to be able to take that into account. To exclude whole classes of objects in primary legislation, as the Liberal Democrats propose, rather than on the basis of a more detailed test, which we can consider when we produce the regulations in due course, would be wrong. This is the wrong time and the wrong legislation for such an amendment. If Liberal Democrats have a view about this, we can discuss it when the regulations come before the House.

Mr. Clappison

I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 19 and 16. As has been correctly anticipated, amendment No. 19 is designed to introduce a much-needed element of accountability into the new system. Amendment No. 16 deals with a different point: it explores the wisdom of giving responsibility for the new asylum support system to the Home Office.

The Government propose the creation of a brand new administrative arm of the Home Office for the management of asylum support. Given that there is no tradition of Home Office experience in such matters, and that the administrative machinery will be wholly new, the background is hardly propitious. The backlog of cases being managed by the asylum determination system, which is a Home Office responsibility, is now reaching record levels. It rose from 64,000 at the end of last year to 76,000 at the end of April, and is still growing.

I shall not go further into those figures, although the Under-Secretary of State has referred to my interest in such matters. Indeed, we are very familiar with each other's speeches on them, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) said yesterday. To be fair to the Under-Secretary, he was good enough not to give us the full version of his speech, in which he sets out his perception of responsibility for those issues.

However, we could reach common ground. The system has got much worse—I shall resist the temptation to say that that has happened in recent months—and the backlog is at a record high. The waiting times for asylum determination appeals taken together are miles away from the Government's targets. The evidence given in the Special Standing Committee shows that hardly anyone seriously believes that the Government will achieve their targets. The officials who naturally said that the Government would achieve those targets did so with a knowing look or a wry smile.

I recently received a letter from the Under-Secretary about the current state of the passport system. Members of the public who want a passport so that they can go on holiday abroad this summer are facing long delays. The letter states: I am sorry that the current arrears are resulting in calls to MPs' offices. That is not entirely surprising, but the wording seemed rather familiar. In my file of letters from the Minister, I found one on the subject of the backlog in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. The long queues of people wanting to stay in this country prove that there is no discrimination in the Government's policy: backlogs are affecting people who want to leave the country and those who want to stay in.

That earlier letter stated: One final category of work that is causing problems in Croydon results from MPs' letters chasing progress on particular cases. On 12 January, I asked colleagues to forward only the most urgent enquiries … Nonetheless, it is disappointing to note that the number of enquiries from MPs has risen over the recent period by a factor of 25 per cent. How very disagreeable it is of Members of Parliament to have the temerity to write letters to Ministers, let alone to expect answers.

Mr. Gapes

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Clappison

No, as I am just about to conclude my remarks.

If he is fair, the Minister must agree that the background to the matter is hardly propitious. After all the Government's broken promises, it would take a brave man to say that they will achieve their targets. We might have more confidence in predicting that it is highly likely that, in the end, the British taxpayer will be asked to pick up the bill.

11.15 pm
Mr. Allan

I am pleased to hear that the Siemens computer system has been delivered, but if there is a five-month testing period, it will come on-line on about 1 January 2000, which may not be the best of ideas. The system is so delayed that it may calculate people's vouchers in pounds, shillings and pence. While that may be proper money, it would not be useful to asylum seekers to receive vouchers for half a crown or three bob and sixpence. [Interruption.] I shall not rise to remarks about matters European as, if I did so, I should stray well away from the amendments.

Amendment No. 153 seeks to assist the Secretary of State by offering him a "Get out of jail free" card if administrative problems arise. It does not prevent him from using vouchers, but allows flexibility to choose whatever balance he wants between vouchers and cash payments. The Bill limits him to paying up to 49 per cent. in cash and a minimum of 51 per cent. in vouchers. It states that he must not provide wholly or mainly by means of payments.

The amendment reverses that provision, saying that the Secretary of State can provide wholly, mainly or partly in cash. I have to ask why the Secretary of State, who is so keen on flexibility elsewhere, is unwilling to have it in this area. If the Asylum Support Directorate works out as we suspect, I fear that the Bill will, in 18 months' time, prevent him from replacing the vouchers with cash, even if that appears to be the most sensible decision and the best deal for the taxpayer. The Government have admitted that the voucher system will be expensive. The more we explore the system, the more concerned we become about its implications and expense and the hassle of running it.

Amendment No. 153 is not an aggressive attempt to divert the Government from their path, but an effort to help by giving additional flexibility to the Secretary of State, who has virtually pinned his political future—or, perhaps, the career of the Minister of State—to the success of the Asylum Support Directorate.

The Under-Secretary has failed to answer our questions about people in accommodation of their own choosing who will not be supported. Clause 18 makes it clear that if other accommodation is available for someone, the Secretary of State will not provide accommodation, but will judge whether that person already has adequate accommodation. Sometimes, people will have chosen their accommodation, but sometimes they will not. If people are living with relatives, the Secretary of State will be able to say that he does not need to give them accommodation.

In either case, the critical point is not the individual's choice, but the rate paid. Will people receive the same 70 per cent. as those in accommodation provided by the Secretary of State? Or will they receive 70 per cent. plus a small uplift to pay the utility costs that would not arise in supported accommodation? I hope that the Minister knows how he intends to handle that point, particularly as accommodation may not be a matter of personal choice. Clause 80 makes it clear that if a person has friends or relatives, he may be required to stay with them if the accommodation is deemed to be adequate.

The final two amendments arose from concerns about comments made in Committee by the Under-Secretary. He has since moved on, and we appreciate his reassurances that some of our fears will not be realised. However, assets remain a grey area. The Government must flesh out their proposals, perhaps when the Bill proceeds to the other place. They cannot simply leave matters to regulations. People want a clear idea of what assets will remain to them. It is not as simple as saying that someone who has £4,000 in gold should have it taken away and that he can start again from scratch once his claim has been recognised.

The Minister referred to an individual with £4,000 who wanted to start a business. If that person was given refugee status, the public interest would arguably be served if he retained his assets and started a business rather than being a burden on the public purse because he had no means of supporting himself.

We recognise that argument in social security legislation, which provides for a £3,000 floor: we enable people to keep their last £3,000-worth of assets because we hope that at some point they will no longer need social security benefits and will play an active role in our economy. There is no justification for stripping away asylum seekers' assets until they are left with next to nothing if we have a realistic expectation that they will be recognised as asylum seekers.

The Minister will have to flesh out that provision. It is not an issue that we shall press tonight, but the hon. Gentleman will run into further trouble with people who share my concerns if he is unable to clarify exactly what level of assets the Government intend to specify in the regulations for deciding whether to declare someone destitute.

Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I want to speak to amendment No. 19 in support of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison). Producing a report would be extremely valuable because there is no doubt that the two issues with which the report would be concerned are very important, but a report is a report is a report, and it is not enough. I say to my hon. Friend that his amendment should have provided for a debate. If the Bill is debated in another place, there will be an opportunity to provide that the report should be debated.

There are two issues, both of which were touched on by my hon. Friend. The first is that the Bill provides a new form of social support, and it seems to be wholly right that, on a periodic basis, the House—whether this Chamber or another—should debate that. The second and quite different issue is the appalling delay associated with applications by asylum seekers. Incidentally, I admit that the delay is no worse than that for passports. The report would have much greater force if the amendment specified that the Government should provide time for a debate on the report. Although I support the amendment, it does not go far enough, and I hope that if a similar amendment is tabled in another place, it will make provision for a debate so that the House will have to be given an opportunity to discuss issues that I, for one, deem to be important.

Fiona Mactaggart

I want to make a couple of points about amendment No. 30, which relates to the collection and sharing of information. I am concerned about the significant powers in clauses 13 and 14 to collect and pass around information. Clause 13 states that the information may be used for the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of criminal offences", and such other purposes as may be specified. Many asylum seekers are concerned about providing information that may be significant to the determination of their case if they think that there is any risk of its reaching their national authorities, which may, in the past, have treated them as criminals. I am certain that there is no intention to pass on information in a way that might put an asylum seeker at risk, but we need more clarity about what organisations could receive that information and what controls exist for confidentiality.

I seek an assurance that the Minister shares my concern about confidentiality and that he will speak to the Refugee Legal Centre and the Immigration Law Practitioners Association—I know that he spoke to them during discussions on the Bill—to find out whether public assurance can be given to ensure that asylum seekers feel free to give information. They must feel confident that it will not be used, for example, by being passed through the European criminal detection system in a way that might, if their asylum claim failed, put them at risk in their country of origin.

My second point relates to the amendment in the name of Opposition Members which provides for a report on the length of time in which decisions are made. I am pleased that decision making has been speeded up, although I used figures on current outstanding cases to calculate that, even at the improved rate of decision making and even if there were no extra applications, it could take us two years merely to get through the backlog.

I am pleased that the Minister is putting extra investment into ensuring that the backlog is reduced, but I am concerned that we are seeing a false picture of progress on present decisions. In April, under the announcement that the Minister made some time ago, there was a backlog of 960 cases. The decisions on those cases will be made quickly. In addition, a very large number of them concern Kosovans. The very low number of refusals is an indication of the number of backlog cases and the number of Kosovans. I am concerned to be able to discover the quality of decisions being made.

Rather than using a ritual reporting system, perhaps the Minister can make a couple of statements that would help to reassure us on the progress that is being made on speeding up decisions. The first is some assurance about avoiding the danger of forcing quick decisions on difficult cases once the easy decisions have been made. I am concerned that there might be a risk—I, more than many, have argued for speed—of making a quick and easy decision and leaving the matter to be sorted out on appeal, which may prolong the case for the individual. Will the Minister reassure us about what quality control mechanisms he will be using to ensure that there are no refusals that cannot be justified, which will lead to successful appeals and thereby create delays?

As well as speeding up the average time to make a decision to two months, which is the Minister's target, will he consider managing a system a little like that for health service waiting lists? The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) has often repeated the mantra that the length of time, rather than the number of cases waiting, is significant. Will the Minister assure us that if, for example, following the achievement of his target average, a family case up to initial decision takes six months, he will institute some mechanism to ensure that the Home Office's administrative procedures are not adding to the length of such cases? I am sure that such a statement would reassure a number of people about the way the system would work in practice.

Dr. Cable

I should simply like to make a few additional comments on amendment No. 153 and the issue of flexibility. We have already had a very important debate on the principles of vouchers, and the Minister has already said that the regulations will take care of much of the technical detail. I shall ask some specific questions about the principles that will govern the voucher system and its administration.

What principles will govern the determination of which outlets will manage the scheme? This important issue was touched on by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), who asked a question about the supermarket system. When the Home Secretary described what he saw as the integrity of the voucher system, he said that it will work because the people who are given the vouchers are the only ones who can redeem them. That means that supermarket check-out assistants will be the last defence of the voucher system; they will have to enforce it.

I imagine that only the large supermarkets will have the capacity to impose the system. Presumably, therefore, supermarkets will be given a large national captive market as a result of the operation of scheme. Supermarkets are almost certainly the least appropriate outlet for many forms of ethnic cooking, and for the foodstuffs that many refugees will seek. Charity shops are relevant for clothes, but we are talking about food. There is a continuum of possibilities between large supermarket chains and the variety of outlets that are needed for flexibility. Where on that scale will the balance lie? Who will take that decision?

11.30 pm

A second question is: what approach will the Government take to the so-called black market in vouchers? Perhaps as a result of my economist's background, I take a very charitable view of black markets; in many cases, they represent the triumph of the human spirit over bureaucracy. A black market gives flexibility, enabling people to trade their real needs in the market—but how will the Government deal with a black market in vouchers? Will there be strict enforcement? Will the emergence of a black market cause great concern, or will the Government allow flexibility?

The third question concerns the link between vouchers and dispersal. Many communities will be relatively small. One dilemma that I encountered many years ago, when I was in local government and involved in an original dispersal policy for Ugandan Asians in Scotland, was that many of the areas where council housing was available were extremely poorly served by retail outlets. Will a directorate in London decide which shops in Scottish towns are appropriate avenues for the distribution of vouchers?

The system is highly inflexible and highly inequitable. Surely it would be much more sensible to build flexibility into the legislation, by saying that, at certain times, or in certain parts of the country, cash should be used instead of vouchers, to allow flexibility.

Mr. Allan

It emerged in Committee that this business of the package of accommodation seems to suggest that the people in London who are negotiating with shops in Scotland will also have to negotiate with landlords in Scotland to change light bulbs and do all the other little things around the accommodation that the asylum seekers, unlike everyone else, are not being given cash to cover.

Dr. Cable

I thank my hon. Friend, and conclude by emphasising our basic point. We are not, in this debate, trying to rehearse the basic issues of principle, but we suggest that, now that the Government are proceeding with a voucher system, for their own protection in the long term they must build sufficient flexibility into the law.

Mr. Wardle

Before the Minister responds to the debate, I want to endorse what the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) said. She has a long and impressive track record in this field. I emphacise that it is crucial to the efficiency and effectiveness of the asylum screening process that asylum applicants have confidence in the integrity and the confidentiality—the secrecy—of the information gathered and assessed. If they are to impart their knowledge of what is happening in their home country, it is vital that that confidence exist.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) alluded to backlogs in the asylum process, as well as at Lunar house generally, because of the attempted switch to information technology. He mentioned the problems in the UK Passport Agency. They are all indicative of a clogged system. If the Minister wishes to introduce fairness to the system, he must persuade the Treasury to spend the money to sweep out the whole queue, so that phoney applicants for asylum are not attracted and do not say, "We can come and there is a queue, so we can stay in the queue." That is the best way to serve the genuine applicants, who have a well-founded fear of persecution under the Geneva convention.

Mr. Mike O'Brien

I shall respond to the points that were raised, although perhaps not in the order in which they were put to me.

First, I give my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) an assurance that I share her anxiety that any information about the identity of an asylum seeker, genuine or not, should not get back to their home country, where it might prejudice their future. Obviously, in some countries, even the simple knowledge that they have claimed asylum may prejudice them. I will therefore speak to the Refugee Legal Centre and others, and discuss how best we can ensure that use of the power does not compromise information that we, too, wish to keep secret.

The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg)—rather unfairly, I thought—reprimanded the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) for the inadequacy of his amendment. I do not want to intrude on private grief, but let me defend the hon. Member for Hertsmere. He did very well. He got a commitment from me that we would consider how more information could be brought forward. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham was extremely unfair to his colleague.

Let me deal with some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan). Amendment No. 153 is not needed. There are powers to suspend or repeal the voucher powers in clause 81 (4) and (5). Accordingly, I ask him not to press the amendment to a Division.

We do not intend to force people on their relatives. That would not be practical. Vouchers and cash will be paid at a standard rate. The utility costs will not be met as an addition. We assume that if the relatives are willing to provide accommodation, they will also be willing to meet the marginal extra costs of utilities while the asylum case is considered.

The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) spoke about the black market in vouchers—

Mr. Gerrard

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. O'Brien

May I not give way? I know that a number of hon. Members want to deal with points in subsequent debates. I have been generous in giving way up to now, and I want to make some progress.

The black market in vouchers is a matter of concern to us. We will discuss with supermarkets how to deal with it. We will need to deal with it during the course of the regulations. I can tell the hon. Member for Twickenham that we want to ensure flexibility.

My hon. Friend the Member for Slough asked whether, if a case took longer than six months, we would ask why. Yes, we will want to know why. There will be some cases that take more than six months because there are legal backlogs for various reasons. If the delay is due to some failure on the part of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, we will want to know that and rectify it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Slough and the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) rightly spoke of the need for fast decisions and sustainable decisions. The legal cost of making unsustainable decisions is too great. The hon. Gentleman is also right to say that we need to get the Treasury on board. I am glad to say that we have the Treasury fully on board with regard to the Bill. The Treasury will commit extra resources—more than £100 million—to the IND over the next three years to ensure that we can employ the hundreds of extra staff whom we need to clear the backlog.

I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman that the backlog is a major impediment to creating a system that works. The best deterrent to abuse of the asylum system is fair, sustainable and quick decision making so that people know that if they do not have a right to be in this country, they will quickly be removed.

On the points made by the hon. Member for Hertsmere, the recovery at the IND is slow, but it is sure. Asylum decisions are up. We will hit our output targets by April 2000 and April 2001. The problem is that the IND never recovered from the increase in asylum claims that took place after 1988. By 1991, the number was up to 45,000. Since then, the backlog has grown and the problems have got worse. In our view, the previous Government ignored them. This Government are determined to sort out the mess that we inherited.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the UK Passport Agency. I shall not dwell on that, but I share his concern about the temporary problems. They are temporary problems—nothing like the situation that we inherited at Croydon. Although the processing of non-urgent applications is taking longer than usual, the Passport Agency is prioritising applications to meet urgent and declared travel dates. It is meeting travel dates in 99.9 per cent. of cases, and expects to continue to do so throughout the summer. The agency is recruiting 300 extra staff to reduce the arrears. The work is seasonal, and intake falls from July onwards. That fact, and the new staff, will enable the agency to bring turn-around times down to 10 days by September. I hope that that gives some reassurance to hon. Members.

I hope that the Government amendment will be supported and the other amendments in the group will not be pressed.

Amendment agreed to.

Forward to