| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Asylum Seekers (Benefits)
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the regulations to reform benefit arrangements for asylum seekers, sponsored immigrants and others. I have today laid before the House the regulations together with the accompanying Command Paper.
The aim of these reforms, together with the measures in the Asylum and Immigration Bill, are to ensure that the United Kingdom remains a safe haven for those genuinely fleeing persecution; to deal more speedily with their claims; and to discourage unfounded claims from people who are actually economic migrants.
Of course genuine refugees come to the United Kingdom to escape persecution, not to obtain our benefits. Their rights to asylum will not be altered in any way, and anyone who arrives here as a refugee and seeks asylum at the port of entry will continue to have access to benefits while their claim is considered by the Home Office.
More than 90 per cent. of people claiming asylum, however, are eventually found not to be genuine refugees. The vast majority of asylum claimants are economic migrants. The number who come here is influenced by the ready availability of benefits. Relative to Britain, other European countries offer less generous benefits and less opportunity for work and have tightened up the procedures applying to asylum seekers. As a result, since 1993 the number of asylum claims in western Europe as a whole has fallen by more than a third, yet in Britain it has doubled.
Consequently the proportion of all asylum seekers in Europe who come to Britain has more than trebled in the past decade. The huge number of unfounded applications means that the tiny proportion of claimants who are genuine face an unnecessarily long process. The total cost of social security benefits alone for asylum seekers already exceeds £200 million a year, yet more than 90 per cent. of that money goes to people who are not genuine refugees. No responsible Government could ignore that growing misuse of taxpayers' money.
One way to address the problem is to speed up the processing of asylum claims. The revised procedures in the Asylum and Immigration Bill will speed up the processing of claims. But it is crucial that the new procedures are not in turn overwhelmed by a rising tide of unfounded claims. So benefit changes are essential to discourage unfounded claims.
Under the new benefit regulations, those who enter the country as refugees, declaring themselves to be asylum seekers at the port of entry, will still be entitled to claim benefit while the Home Office deals with their claim. So will those who claim after entering the country as visitors, if there has been a significant upheaval in their homeland since their arrival. But at present some 70 per cent. of all asylum claims are made by people who entered the United Kingdom as tourists, students or business men. As such, they demonstrated that they had the means to support themselves while they were here and accepted that they would not be entitled to claim benefit. Yet, under current rules, when they subsequently apply for asylum, they become entitled to benefit. We propose to end entitlement
to benefit for those who entered the country saying that they were not here to seek asylum but subsequently changed their story. From now on, there will be no benefits for those who misrepresent their case.
British citizens do not receive a benefit while appealing against refusal. Successive Governments have upheld that policy, or every unsuccessful British benefit claimant would have an incentive to appeal against refusal of his or her benefit. However, under the present rules, asylum seekers are allowed to retain benefit during an appeal. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of asylum seekers appeal against rejection. Yet 96 per cent. of their appeals turn out to be unfounded. I therefore propose that once an asylum seeker's claim has been considered and rejected, entitlement to benefit will cease. They will no longer be able to prolong entitlement to benefit by appealing against refusal of refugee status. In that respect, asylum seekers will, in future, be treated in the same way as United Kingdom citizens whose claims for benefit are refused.
Particular concern has been expressed at the prospect of large numbers of asylum seekers losing entitlement on the day when the new arrangements come into force. Of course, I understand those concerns. When the proposals were announced last October, there was an obvious danger of a surge of pre-emptive claims during the consultation period to get on to benefit before the new regulations came into effect. To discourage that, we announced that those who made in-country claims or appeals after 11 October would lose benefit entitlement once the regulations took place. That announcement seems to have dampened the surge of pre-emptive claims. I have taken note of concerns about handling a large number of benefit terminations simultaneously and the transitional impact that it would have on local authority finances. I have therefore decided to amend the transitional arrangements significantly. No one will now lose benefit when the new regulations come into effect on 5 February.
The 13,000 or more asylum seekers who have made in-country claims or appeals since 12 October and are receiving income support, housing benefit or council tax benefit will continue to get benefit unless or until their claim or appeal is subsequently rejected. That transitional protection will substantially reduce the potential impact on local authorities.
However, the Government also propose to assist local authorities with any unavoidable additional costs arising under homelessness legislation or the Children Act 1989. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Health and for the Environment will discuss the details with local authority associations shortly. I believe that this fully meets the most pressing concerns put to the Government by the Social Security Advisory Committee and local authorities. Taken together with measures proposed in the Asylum and Immigration Bill and further work between my Department and the Home Office on improving asylum decision times and priority setting, these changes will make a significant contribution to addressing the problem of bogus asylum seekers.
The Government further propose that people from abroad whose leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom is subject to some limit or condition--for example, that they should not have recourse to public funds--should be excluded from non-contributory benefits. That will bring these benefits into line with exclusions which already apply under income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit rules.
The arrangement whereby people are allowed into this country on the understanding that a sponsor has promised to support them, has been widely abused. Nearly half the sponsors renege on those agreements. The regulations will hold sponsors to their agreements and benefits will become payable only if the sponsor dies or the sponsorship agreement breaks down after five years. Finally, the Government propose to amend the arrangements to remove the Secretary of State's discretion to make interim payments in some circumstances.
No responsible Government could fail to tackle a situation where well over 90 per cent. of benefit is not going to genuine refugees. These reforms will ensure that the United Kingdom remains a safe haven for genuine refugees. They will help to deal with their claims faster and they will discourage bogus claimants who are bettering themselves at the taxpayers' expense. The changes that I have made will end concerns over the transitional arrangements, alleviate burdens on local authorities and protect the British taxpayer. I believe that the measures are both fair and necessary and I commend them to the House.
Mr. Keith Bradley (Manchester, Withington):
Is it not clear that the Secretary of State's statement is further evidence of the harshness of his Administration? Why did the Government not listen to the views of all the groups with an interest in the subject, such as immigration welfare agencies, the churches and local authorities throughout Britain, who urged them not to start down this road?
The Opposition clearly support proper measures to stop fraudulent asylum applications, but surely tackling the appalling administrative delays in the procedures would be far more effective than this indiscriminate attack on applicants?
The Opposition welcome some of the changes that have been forced on the Secretary of State, but a number of issues still require clarification today and I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a number of questions.
First, the right hon. Gentleman, in his statement, claims that 90 per cent. of all applicants are not genuine. However, the Government's own figures show that 23 per cent. of applicants are either granted refugee status on conventional grounds or are granted exceptional leave to remain. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the Government's own figures in that respect?
Secondly, what are the implications for parliamentary democracy of the right hon. Gentleman's authorisation of letters to asylum seekers telling them that their benefits will be cut off on 8 January this year? Does not that show that the right hon. Gentleman expected to push the proposals straight through the House without any parliamentary scrutiny?
Why did the right hon. Gentleman originally set a timetable of only 21 statutory days between laying the regulations and their coming into force, when 18 of those days were during the Christmas and new year recess with no opportunity for hon. Members to comment effectively on the draft regulations?
Why was the Social Security Advisory Committee given only one month to consult on those vital changes when its usual period of consultation is considerably longer than that? Why has the right hon. Gentleman not waited, as he has been asked to do by many hon.
Members, to have sight of the report of the Select Committee on Social Security, which is currently holding an inquiry into the proposed changes? Would it not have been better to have the benefit of the evidence that was to be put before that Committee?
Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the evidence of his own officials, who, when summoned before the Committee and asked how they expected asylum seekers to survive after 8 January--the original date of implementation--were quite unable to answer, merely replying that
How will people manage in that situation?
What consideration has been given to representations to the Social Security Advisory Committee that the distinction between port and in-country applications is an artificial one? What assessment has the right hon. Gentleman made of the evidence from various refugee organisations that there are good reasons why many applicants do not claim asylum until after they have entered the country, such as having a well-founded fear of officialdom, wishing to seek an interpreter or legal advice, or wishing to make contact with family and friends to give them support when they make the application?
Is the Secretary of State aware that, when the then Home Secretary introduced the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, he fully anticipated a rise in the number of applications and set a three-month limit for decisions on those applications, but, owing to Home Office incompetence, the average waiting time is 19 months? Does not that backlog mean that asylum seekers who are unable to find work or alternative sources of funding will be unable to survive for such long periods without the support of the social security system?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that, following the revision of the original regulations, the expected savings are still an estimated £200 million? Will not they be offset, however, by the appalling additional cost to local authorities of, for instance, having to take children into care? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that authorities will receive a 100 per cent. reimbursement of those costs?
Why did the Secretary of State not wait for the outcome of the judicial review sought by the London boroughs of Westminster and Wandsworth--Tory flagships, I believe? What consideration has he given to the remarks of his former Cabinet colleague, the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), in his support for the Westminster application? Should not the Home Secretary accept amendments to the Asylum and Immigration Bill--currently in Committee--which gives the power to deny child benefit to hundreds of thousands of people who are lawfully settled in this country?
"Ministers believe that in reality the majority of claims are unfounded."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |