§ 7.52 p.m.
§ Lord Bassam of Brightonrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th February be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move this Motion on behalf of my noble friend Lord Rooker. The order, which was laid before Parliament on 25th February, repeals Section 96(3) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. That section states that asylum support provided by the Secretary of State under subsection (1)(a) or (b), or subsection (2), of Section 96 must not be wholly or mainly made by way of payments to a supported person or to his dependants, except in exceptional cases. The provision effectively bars the Home Secretary from making subsistence payments to asylum seekers in cash, except to a limited extent.
As noble Lords will know, the Home Secretary announced in another place last October the Government's intention to move away from the provision of subsistence payments by way of vouchers. In order to achieve this, Section 96(3) must first be repealed. If it is not, the present voucher system cannot be ended. Subject to parliamentary approval of this order, it is proposed that payments in cash will start for all asylum seekers supported by NASS from 8th April.
In the short term, these payments will be made using the existing system for the issue of vouchers. It is our aim to use the new application registration card as a means of identifying those eligible for receipt of payment. We have decided to introduce cash payments now for two reasons. First, we believe that the change to cash payments now will enable us better to manage the transition to application registration card-based payments. Secondly—and, most importantly, for asylum seekers themselves—moving to cash payments now means that they will be able to spend their money where they like and will not be limited to the choice of shops where they could use the vouchers.
It will be necessary to make consequential amendments to the Asylum Support Regulations 2000. The necessary amending regulations were laid before Parliament on 6th March. I beg to move.
1016 Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th February be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
§ Lord Dixon-SmithMy Lords, this change is welcome. It was always likely that the use of vouchers would prove problematic; and, indeed, that has proved to be the case. It was occasionally embarrassing for individuals, and often created quite unreal and artificial difficulties. As I say, we welcome the proposals. We shall be very happy to see the amended regulations in place.
§ Lord DholakiaMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the explanation he has offered to the House. It is a good decision, and one which we on this side of House certainly welcome. When the Immigration and Asylum Act was debated in this House, the Minister will have noticed that we opposed the voucher scheme. We consistently argued that it was unworkable, and also pointed out that such a provision was likely to disadvantage those who were in receipt of it.
I have a number of questions for the Minister. However, I do not expect him to have all the answers. If he has not, he can write to me. Can the Minister say what is the precise timetable for the implementation of this statutory instrument? The noble Lord, explained the transitional arrangement and what would be likely to happen, but it would also he helpful to know whether the level of financial support will be the same as that applied to ordinary members of the community. Asylum seekers need to be equated on the same basis. All the organisations concerned with asylum and child care have asked for equivalence. Can the Minister assure me that there will be no slippage, and can he confirm that children will remain on the same rate?
As regards adults, we note that adult asylum seekers do not have to meet certain utility bills. It would be helpful to know the basis of the decision to restrict payment at 70 per cent, and how it was reached. Further, will the Minister consult immigration and asylum organisations to discuss the appropriate level of payment? Finally, we also need to address the question of what would happen to asylum seekers who do not take the accommodation offered but choose instead to stay with friends or family. We very much hope that their cases will not be prejudiced by such action. It is still cheaper for the state to accept such an arrangement.
As I said earlier, I do not expect the Minister to have all the answers to my questions. This has been a very sad state of affairs, despite the best intentions of the Government. The system has not worked, but I acknowledge that it took a good deal of courage actually to reverse the original decision. We certainly welcome this move.
§ Lord Bassam of BrightonMy Lords, I am in the enviable position of being able to welcome the welcomes; indeed, I am delighted that that is the case. I shall try to address the precise points made by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. Of course, it is the case that the Liberal Democrats argued that the scheme 1017 was unworkable. I am not so sure that it was "unworkable", because other issues impacted upon its implementation. This meant that the Government decided, quite rightly, to move away from the cautious approach of a voucher scheme to a cash-based system. Improvements in technology and the long-term desire to introduce a system of smart cards, and so on, will enable the Government to make a significant impact on the potential for fraud within the system.
The noble Lord asked about a timetable. It is our intention to introduce cash payments on 8th April. By the end of September it is hoped to start the gradual introduction of the application registration card as a means of enabling asylum seekers to obtain cash payments through their post office. The scheme is relatively simple to follow. At present, asylum seekers will be able to attend the local post office with their book, their chitty, or their slips. In the interim, they will be given vouchers, which they will pass straight back over the counter and receive cash. That is how the process is intended to work. In the longer term, it is the Government's intention to introduce a form of smart card. Those making in-country applications will be able to access that smart card system from the outset.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, raised a point about utilities and the relationship between those and the adult cash payment rate. The calculation has been made that the discount, the 30 per cent, is approximate to the value of housing accommodation which is fully furnished and has all the necessary utensils and furniture in place. It is felt that 70 per cent is a fair reflection of the true cash need of asylum seekers and that the 30 per cent covers utility payments such as rent and so on. It is assumed that that is all included.
The noble Lord made a final point about those staying with families and friends. That matter is under review at all times. It is currently the case that a large number of asylum seekers stay with friends and family. It is the Government's intention in the long term to provide an estate so that individual asylum seekers can be properly accommodated and worked with in terms of processing their asylum application. We believe that that is the right way forward. It was announced in the White Paper and it is the Government's desire to proceed in that way, but the noble Lord's point is an important one to reflect on and take on board.
With those comments and, I hope, having answered the points raised by the noble Lord, I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.