| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Howard: I will give way to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), but I shall not give way again after that.
Mr. Kaufman: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has just said that the conditions relating to child benefit will not apply to people who have been given indefinite leave to remain. Clause 10(2) states:
- "No immigrant within the meaning of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 shall be entitled to child benefit for any week unless he satisfies prescribed conditions."
- "'immigrant' means a person who under the 1971 Act requires leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom (whether or not such leave has been given)."
Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman reconcile what he has just said--that the entitlement of someone with indefinite leave to remain will not be removed--with
the statement in the definition clause that someone who has required leave to remain, whether he is given that leave or not, is subject to the condition?
Mr. Howard:
I understand the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes. The wording of the clause mirrors wording in comparable social security legislation: the right hon. Gentleman will understand that it is, in effect, a social security clause. I have no doubt that the precise wording will be scrutinised carefully in Standing Committee, but I have clearly indicated how we intend the powers to be exercised.
Mr. Kaufman:
This is an important point. What the Home Secretary says, on the Floor of the House, that he intends to do is not a substitute for what is stated in an Act of Parliament, and the future Act of Parliament that he is asking the House to approve states clearly and unequivocally, in clause 12(2), that
This is not a matter of social security legislation; it is a matter of Home Office immigration legislation. The Home Secretary must either clarify it, or give the House a commitment to amend the Bill to fulfil what he has just said from the Dispatch Box.
Mr. Howard:
The right hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that a prescribed condition under clause 10 can be that the person has no restriction or condition placed on his leave to remain. That is precisely the way in which we intend to exercise this power. The right hon. Gentleman is so clearly fascinated by the detailed wording of the Bill that no doubt he will join his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) on the Standing Committee. It promises to be an extremely interesting Committee.
Mr. Tony Banks:
Will the Home Secretary give way?
Mr. Howard:
I have already given way to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and I must make progress.
I now come to the question of the Special Standing Committee procedure. On this matter I wholly endorse the view that has been expressed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. It has always been clear that the procedure was designed for Bills that have a degree of cross-party support. The Bills for which it has been used have been relatively technical and non-controversial. Regrettably, and not least because of the reactions of Opposition Members, from the outset this Bill has not fallen into that category and has attracted substantial controversy.
Parliament's normal procedures are designed to subject legislation to detailed scrutiny. I have no doubt whatever, especially after what we have just heard, that the Bill will have ample scrutiny as it makes its way through our normal procedures. All hon. Members agree on the importance of preserving good race relations, and all say that they agree on the need for fair and firm but effective immigration control. That being so, it should be possible for the House to have a constructive debate on the Bill. However, for that to be possible it is essential that hon. Members in all parts of the House should be prepared to address our specific proposals. We are entitled to expect that those who disagree with them will say whether they
accept that urgent action is required to deal with the problems that I have described; and, if they do, what alternative action they propose.
Some have suggested that this is an immoral Bill. I reject that utterly. It is not immoral to protect our asylum procedures against the current massive level of abuse. It is not immoral to declare that, in our judgment, the conditions in some countries do not give rise to a serious risk of persecution. It is not immoral to insist that people arriving from other safe countries should return to pursue their claims there. It is not immoral to seek to protect employment opportunities for those entitled to live and work here, and it is not immoral to combat racketeering.
Mr. Jack Straw (Blackburn):
Britain has been immeasurably enriched by the contribution that has been made to its economy and its society by successive gener ations of immigrants. Long before the United Nations came into being, Britain was often a beacon of liberty for those who had been forced to flee their native countries, as many in the House can testify from their own family experiences. Those of us who have so benefited have a special responsi bility to remember that asylum policy is about the protection of that most basic right, the right to life.
The appalling events in Nigeria in recent weeks remind us yet again why Britain must honour its own history and retain an asylum system that is just and humane. Race relations in Britain are much better than in many other European countries, but we have to tread carefully to ensure that they stay so. Above all, we must act in a way in which prejudice is not fanned, and people must not be led to believe that immigration is out of control. If that happens, racial tension will rise, and the whole country will be the loser.
The Secretary of State says that immigration controls must be firm and fair. He is right, but, by that phrase, he recognises that there must be a balance between fairness and firmness, between justice and control. It is central to our case that he has failed to achieve that balance in this Bill. The Bill may not deal effectively with some of the worst abuse, as we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), yet it may deny refuge to entirely genuine asylum seekers, conflict with our obligations under United Nations treaties, harm the interests of many people from ethnic minorities who are lawfully settled here, and, in so doing, damage race relations.
In his speech on the Loyal Address, the Prime Minister said:
The Secretary of State said that his Bill was "a balanced response", but he must know that such an approach--take it or leave it--is no recipe for consensus, but only for conflict. What makes his position all the more threadbare is that the House has established procedures that could achieve the consensus that he says he seeks.
Mr. Michael Stephen (Shoreham):
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Bill's provisions will apply to Poland, where the people are white, as it does to Ghana, where the people are black, and that it is the hon. Gentleman and the Labour party who are playing the race card?
Mr. Straw:
Of course I accept that: Poland is on the white list, so what the hon. Gentleman said is absolutely correct.
"'immigrant' means a person who under the 1971 Act requires leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom (whether or not such leave has been given)."
"While I lead it, the instincts of my party will not be to play race at any time".--[Official Report, 15 November 1995; Vol. 267, c. 39.]
The Secretary of State has offered the same commitment. He said in his statement on the Bill that he agreed with
"the desirability of taking this issue out of party politics."--[Official Report, 20 November 1995; Vol. 267, c. 338.]
He went on to assert, however, that there was a "simple way" for that to be achieved--the people who have the most profound reservations about this measure should simply agree with him.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |