House of Commons Hansard Debates for 16 Jun 1999 (pt 31)

6.15 pm

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for listening to the concerns of his colleagues and others in the House. I am pleased about the changes that he has made, but my fundamental belief is that all children should be treated equally. Children are children, from whatever country, of whatever race, however short a time they may be here and whatever the status of their parents. While they are in this country, they should be treated exactly the same as children who are born here or who already live here. The support system is creating two classes of children because two different systems will operate.

I know that the voucher system has been designed to deter people from coming to this country. I accept that my right hon. Friend's changes have ameliorated the effects on families with children and that he has changed the original proposals concerning the Children Act 1989, but I am still uneasy about the fact that the Act in its entirety will not apply to asylum seekers' children. Breaking up the terms of the Children Act, which was ground-breaking legislation, in such a way is a dangerous precedent.

Before I came to the House, I was an assistant director of Barnardos. I know that, through its work with asylum seekers' children, it is deeply concerned about the effects of the Bill--as are all the major children's charities, including UNICEF. Deep concerns have also been expressed by the Law Society and many other bodies. We have made much progress in developing the Bill over the

16 Jun 1999 : Column 436

past few weeks, but we could do better for families and children who come to this country in deeply traumatising circumstances.

Mr. Gwyn Prosser (Dover): On several occasions in Committee and on the Floor of the House, Members have drawn on experiences in their constituencies to highlight points. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) drew an accurate distinction between her experiences in an area where asylum seekers settle and form families, and those in constituencies such as mine--in Kent and other areas--where people come and go. Local experience changes the perception not only of the Member but of the local people.

Many hon. Members have thanked Ministers for the concessions and changes that they have made so far, although some of the thanks has been rather mealy-mouthed. I should like to offer a lonely expression of thanks for the basic elements of the Bill, because they address many of the problems and difficulties encountered by my constituents and in east Kent in past years. I shall mention some of those problems.

Dover district council and Kent county council were suddenly confronted with massive burdens, not just of costs but on resources, which they had never had to meet before. Real crises arose in meeting just basic human demands. The councils coped well and have adapted and set up systems, but they confronted major problems. That is why when I led a delegation from Tory Kent county council to see the Minister, it lobbied very hard for a shift from local authority to central Government spending on asylum seekers. The county council has welcomed some of the changes in the Bill.

Problems of social tension have also arisen in the community--probably the worst problems that we have experienced. They have been caused in part by a small number of extremists--one cannot call them anything other than fascists--from the British National party and the National Front, who have marched in the streets of Dover, held demonstrations, tried, but, thank goodness, not very successfully, to recruit local people and distributed vile literature.

Local people perceive that most of the asylum seekers with whom they have come into contact are not genuinely fleeing oppression and persecution. There are very special reasons for that perception, arising from their recent experience.

Before 1996, we had no asylum seekers in the area; we had never really met them. Lots of people were passing through and going to other areas, but they were not settling in Dover. We had a tiny ethnic minority of less than 0.6 per cent. of the population. I suppose that, as a Welshman, I was part of a certain ethnic minority.

By September 1997, within a single year, for reasons that we know, hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people from the Czech Republic or other parts of eastern Europe, who would fail the criteria for asylum--none met the first interview criteria--settled in the area. Having failed the first interview, they used the present discredited, long-winded appeal system to spend as much time as possible in the area.

Members might remember the infamous documentary film that was made by some Czech film makers. It was filmed in Dover and shown throughout eastern Europe.

16 Jun 1999 : Column 437

It depicted a family of Czech people picnicking on the Dover sea front, drinking red wine and eating French sticks, and generally having a nice time. The documentary explained the ease of access to cash benefits, the means of accessing the system and the ways that the duration of stay in the United Kingdom could be lengthened. That had a definite effect. The film was almost as good as a holiday brochure and it was almost an invitation to have a holiday.

I believe that the message has now got through that east Kent, Thanet and Dover are not part of the prosperous south-east. They are not part of the garden of England. It is not difficult to imagine that someone who lives in a rundown part of Dover--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I think that I should direct his attention to the precise subject matter of the new clause and the amendments grouped with it, which is support for children. Although I understand some of the general considerations that overhang the debate, I must advise him to try to tailor his remarks to the particular question of support for children.

Mr. Prosser: I am quite satisfied with the changes that have been made in support for children, and I would appreciate the opportunity to address some of the remarks that the Secretary of State made in opening the debate, when he talked about vouchers taking away the attraction--taking away the pull factor.

It is not difficult to imagine that people living in difficult circumstances, in a poor part of Dover, would be resentful if they felt that their new neighbours were taking advantage of the system at their expense.

I do not want to increase the number of myths and lies that are being circulated in Dover, partly by our local newspaper, but it is true that groups of young single male asylum seekers, who are on cash benefits and make their own arrangements for accommodation, crowd into single small houses and, by sharing the rent and by sharing--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must reflect on his words and realise that they do not fall within the terms of the group of amendments before us. He should concentrate his remarks on the type of support for children.

Mr. Prosser: In that case, I shall stand by my support for the concessions and changes in respect of the proportion of cash versus voucher support for children, and perhaps find an opportunity to participate in the later debates.

Ms Abbott: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on one of the aspects of the Bill that has caused most concern.

We have been assured that, in order to encourage the Home Secretary, we should not fail to congratulate him on the concessions that he has made. As the Home Secretary is not a blushing political ingenu and needs no encouragement, I shall content myself with saying that I appreciate the fact that he has listened to the many arguments that colleagues have made, and that I especially

16 Jun 1999 : Column 438

appreciate the increase in the cash element of the support system because, literally from the day when I saw that Ministers were proposing to give asylum-seeker children 50p a day, it was my strong belief that, whatever the issues of principle, that was unconscionable. I tabled an early-day motion, which many Members felt able to sign. Whatever else happens during scrutiny of the Bill, at least I know that asylum-seeker mothers will have a little more cash to play with each week, and I am grateful for that concession.

There has been much discussion in the newspapers about the Government's climbdown on the system of support, especially in relation to children. I have the advantage over journalists and others who believe that there has been a climbdown in relation to the system of support in relation to children as well because, having served on the Committee, I have read the Bill many times over and I know that--as the Prime Minister was at pains to say when interviewed about the matter on the "Today" programme earlier in the week--there has been no climbdown. The system of support remains fundamentally flawed, including in relation to children.

In an intervention on the Home Secretary, I said that it was wrong in principle that any part of our welfare system should be designed to be a disincentive. The Home Secretary responded that that was quite wrong. All I can do is quote back to the Home Secretary from paragraph 4.20 of his own document "Asylum Seekers' Support", published in March. It says:

"The arrangements set out in this paper which are based on the principle of support in kind with a minimal cash provision are expected to have a significant disincentive effect".

That is what the Home Secretary was saying in March, and I believe that that thinking underlies the system of support.

I put it to the Home Secretary again that it must be wrong for any part of our welfare system to be designed to have, in his own words, "a significant disincentive effect" because that is a return to the thinking of the poor law, and it is thinking on welfare rights which this society left behind a century ago.

Colleagues--especially Ministers--have talked about the support system as though it is merely an alternative form of income support. The argument that I have advanced against the support system, and particularly against including children within the scope of the support system, is that it is quite different from income support, as colleagues have said.

First, the judgments that will be made by the new support directorate are entirely subjective. Clause 84 says:

"The Secretary of State may provide . . . support for"