| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Smith: I have to say that the Secretary of State is incorrect for the years 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1995. He says that we are talking about very small numbers of people. There were 670 last year, 530 the year before that, 1,260 the year before that and 705 the year before that. The Secretary of State's figures are incorrect.
Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman is confusing percentages and absolute numbers. The fact is that the majority of people at present do claim in-country, and the majority of people who are eventually accepted claim in-country.
Mr. Smith: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Lilley: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman, who cannot tell the difference between percentages and numbers.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury(Mr. Smith) can see when the Secretary of State is giving way and when he is not.
Mr. Lilley: The--[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Did I hear the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) suggest that an hon. Member was bogus? If so, I hope very much that he will withdraw that comment.
Mr. Bernie Grant (Tottenham): I said that the Secretary of State's arguments were bogus.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am most grateful.
Mr. Lilley: The simple fact is that, since we announced the changes, the proportion of people choosing to claim at port rather than in-country has suddenly risen. One of the reasons people previously claimed in-country is that such a claim makes it more difficult subsequently to remove a person, as he will have to be subject to deportation procedures. Those claiming at port are easier to remove, as they are subject only to removal procedures. There was a positive advantage for people to claim in-country, apart from any desire to get benefit.
The change that we have made--even if people have to some extent circumvented it for benefits--will bring about greater honesty and clarity at ports, and will mean that people will not claim an artificial advantage by entering the country before they subsequently make their claim.
Ms Glenda Jackson:
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Ms Abbott:
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Lilley:
I have given way to a great number of hon. Members and I shall make some progress, if I may.
A number of critics of the changes that we have made have tried to suggest that the bulk of asylum seekers whose claims are rejected are not really bogus. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) and his party's spokesman in another place, Lord Russell, have said that we are dealing not with bogus claims but with bogus refusals. They have claimed that the Home Office has in some way tightened up the definition of asylum seekers. That is simply and palpably untrue.
The definition used to define a refugee is laid down in international law by the Geneva convention and has not changed. Decisions made by Home Office officials are justiciable and can be taken to a further stage of appeal, and that is to a legal body and not a Home Office body. A case can be taken to a further judicial review if it is felt that the law is not being applied correctly. In 96 per cent. of cases where there is an appeal to a higher authority, the Home Office decision is upheld. There is no evidence that the Home Office is not interpreting the rules properly or correctly.
Mr. David Alton (Liverpool, Mossley Hill):
The Secretary of State will accept that Canada is not entirely parallel to the UK for these purposes, but will he reflect that only 4 per cent. of cases in this country are judged to be convention refugees, whereas in Canada 70 per cent. of those who apply are accepted for convention purposes? Does that--and the even more significant comparisons that can be made with other EC countries--not demonstrate that we receive far fewer people as convention refugees because of the way in which we choose to interpret the rules?
Mr. Lilley:
The hon. Gentleman has chosen an exceptional country for an example, and he will know that the position in most other European countries is rather similar to that in this country--the rates of refusal and rejection are fairly similar.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury suggested that the bulk of asylum seekers should be considered as refugees. Another body, Asylum Aid, wrote to the Evening Standard to suggest that most refugees have
That is scarcely ever the case. To get to this country, it is usually necessary for people to get a visa in the first place. Hon. Members will know that that is not a speedy or an easy process. It often involves more than one visit to the British entry clearance officer in the country of origin and obtaining information from here before they arrive in this country. To suggest that people are arriving suddenly and unexpectedly, because of a knock on their door in the night, and that they have only the clothes they stand up in is untrue.
In this country, as in most other countries, we face a major problem because of the rising flow of economic migrants using the asylum procedures, which were set up for quite different purposes. We have to cope with that problem--any Government would have to try to cope with it--and there are only two ways to do so.
One way is to speed up the procedures, by using the improvements in the Asylum and Immigration Bill, which is going through the House. The other is to reduce the
attraction of benefits. The Opposition have opposed both measures, as they have opposed every attempt by the House to update immigration and asylum procedures. Their approach is fundamentally irresponsible. It does not even meet the needs of genuine asylum seekers, who are the principal sufferers from a system that puts them in the long queue that is created by tens of thousands of bogus asylum seekers.
Ms Liz Lynne (Rochdale):
I am pleased that we have had a chance to debate these regulations. That was due to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton). Without him they would already have been put into practice.
I am glad that the proposed changes were examined in detail by the Social Security Advisory Committee, which took evidence from 225 individuals and organisations, from Shelter to the British Medical Association, Disability Alliance, Maternity Alliance, church groups and local councils--of all political persuasions, I hasten to add.
The SSAC concluded that the Government's proposals should not proceed, and stated:
"destitution" is the word the committee used--
Mr. Stephen:
Does the hon. Lady recall that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that, to get into the country in the first place, the persons to whom she refers would have to satisfy the immigration officer that they have the means to support themselves while they are here? No question of destitution can arise.
Ms Lynne:
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can have heard me. I was quoting the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee, which is hardly an anti-Government body--the chairman and members were appointed by the Secretary of State. Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that? But still the Government will not listen--even though that committee's main function is to advise on social security regulations.
The people who support the regulations falsely claim that anyone who applies in-country is bogus. That claim is based on ignorance of the difficulties and the real trauma that asylum seekers have gone through before they get to this country. Many asylum seekers are ignorant of immigration law and the benefit rules. It is hardly surprising that they turn to friends, relatives and organisations for advice before going to Government officials. Often they were frightened of such officials in their own countries.
Most asylum seekers apply within a few days. Some come in on false passports because they cannot get genuine papers in their countries. A study by the Refugee
Council showed that 42 per cent. of those who apply for asylum in this country applied on the same day; 8 per cent. within one day; and 31 per cent. within one week. Those are not people who have come to Britain on visitors' visas, stayed for six months, decided that they like the country and applied for political asylum; they are genuine refugees. I do not doubt that there are some people who do that sort of thing. They have to be dealt with quickly and, if they are bogus, they must be dealt with accordingly and sent back to their countries.
"fled imprisonment or the threat of death at a moment's notice, often with only the clothes they stand up in."
"We do not believe that it is acceptable that a solution should be sought by putting at risk of destitution"--
"many people who are genuinely seeking refuge in this country, amongst whom may be numbered some of the most vulnerable and defenceless in our society".
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |