| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Chris Smith: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously trying to tell us that there is a new definition of a genuine asylum seeker, which is someone who puts in his application at the port of entry, rather than subsequently? If that is the case, he is ignoring the evidence of the facts, which show that the Government accept as genuine refugees a higher proportion of those who put in their applications subsequently.
Mr. Hawkins: I acknowledge that, but it is important to note that many people who come to this country initially as students or tourists decide to claim asylum only after many months, if not longer. Often, they are the freeloaders, as the hon. Gentleman knows only too well. Those people will not be eligible until after their claim has been decided. If they are then found to be genuinely entitled to asylum, as many are, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, of course they will be eligible for benefit if they cannot get work.
Given that 70 per cent. of people who claim asylum originally entered the country on tourist or student visas, or as illegal immigrants, surely the hon. Gentleman would not claim that they are all genuine asylum seekers. I see the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury(Mr. Smith) shaking his head and I am glad that he acknowledges that point.
Ms Lynne:
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a number of genuine asylum seekers will lose out? As Labour Front Benchers have pointed out, many genuine asylum seekers apply in-country, on the same day as they arrive, the next day or perhaps a week later. They are genuine asylum seekers and they will not receive social security benefits. They will be destitute.
Mr. Hawkins:
Those who apply the same day, the next day or a week later, will not suffer. [Hon. Members: "They will."] No. I am talking about the important need to crack down on bogus asylum seekers. It is important that the British taxpayer is not ripped off by bogus asylum seekers. Most voters and most of the people support that view. If the hon. Lady and Labour Front Benchers are suggesting that they would carry on paying out benefit willy-nilly to people who apply for asylum, even if those people turn out to be bogus, they will not have the support of the country.
Mr. Hawkins:
No, I must make some progress, and I have given way to the hon. Lady once.
In the continuing crackdown on benefit fraud, it is important to increase home visits. I am delighted that the Benefits Agency staff will follow up at least 30 per cent. of new benefit claims next year with home visits and that other checks will also be increased.
It is also important to develop new technology and I am pleased that, next year, the agency expects to award a contract for the automation of services at post office counters, which will include testing of the benefit payment card, and that, in a separate initiative, local authorities will also be able to use a computer system to cross-check benefit claims. The people will be looking carefully at Labour and Liberal Democrat-controlled local authorities to find out whether they use that system. Once the initiative has been introduced, there will be much criticism if only the Conservative authorities use it.
I am pleased that, since 1993, local authorities have been able to earn funds by detecting fraud against housing and council tax benefits, although Labour-controlled Blackpool council has not been at all prominent in using that opportunity to earn funds for the people of Blackpool. It has a particularly abject record in cracking down on fraud, no doubt for the reasons on which I touched earlier.
I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that the subsidies will be increased for local authorities that detect fraud in housing and council tax benefits in 1996-97. Local authorities will also be able to bid for new money to pay for innovative schemes to combat fraud and no less than £18 million will be made available for such schemes.
On housing benefit, local authorities will have the discretion to make the first payment payable to the landlord, which will undoubtedly stop tenants running off with it before it reaches the landlord. From October, all new claims for housing benefit from private sector and housing association tenants will be paid in arrears. Where payments are made directly to landlords, they will be made four-weekly in arrears, saving£40 million in the first year.
It is important to examine how the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen approach the need to make savings in our social security budget. I was absolutely fascinated to see the letter from the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. I am sure that he and the shadow Chief Secretary will have some interesting discussions with the civil service trade unions--many of which, of course, sponsor Labour Members--particularly when the shadow Chief Secretary has clearly acknowledged in his letter many of the measures that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has spoken about in this debate, particularly under the heading "Changes to Location".
Mr. Chris Smith:
I have been listening with care to the hon. Gentleman. Can he tell me the name of one member of the parliamentary Labour party who is sponsored by a civil service trade union?
Mr. Hawkins:
I am not able to give the hon. Gentleman a particular name, but I have no doubt that research will enable me to answer that question. Perhaps, in the time-honoured phrase, I could write to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Corbyn:
Before the hon. Gentleman gets completely carried away with next week's headlines in the Blackpool local press, I should tell him that no civil service union is affiliated to the Labour party. It would, therefore, be quite difficult for a civil service union to
Mr. Hawkins:
I understand that the hon. Gentleman is sponsored by Unison, which is a public sector trade union. I do not see--and nor will the people of this country--a huge distinction there. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to make a distinction without a difference.
In his letter, which is of great interest, the shadow Chief Secretary says:
this is perhaps not literate English--
Some proof-reading is required there, but the point is clear.
When Labour Front Benchers examine this issue, they will have to consider what they are going to do about their previous proposals for a flexible decade of retirement.I am fascinated that so many Labour party spokesmen have said that they support a flexible decade of retirement,but that they have unaccountably ignored the fact that the vast majority of people would choose to take retirement at the earliest possible date to which they were entitled. If Labour Front Benchers' proposals for a flexible decade of retirement were to be introduced and allowed everyone who chose to claim a full pension from the age of 60, and of course most people would, the practical effect is that it would cost £13 billion a year.
Have the Labour Front-Bench spokesmen cleared those proposals with the shadow Chancellor? I suspect that they have not. Similarly, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury refused to say whether the measures that he mentioned in his speech would be reversed by the Labour party. Unless Labour Front Benchers are prepared to answer those questions, their criticisms of the measures cannot be taken remotely seriously.
It is crucial to recognise how strong is our position on pension provision. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently said, in the inaugural Politeia lecture:
as my right hon. Friend pointed out--
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North):
So that the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) does not get too excited, I am happy to say on the record, as it
"There may be scope for rationalising the location of various DSS activities. The development of the site at Longbenton on Tyneside under the PFI clearly points in this direction and the the"--
"closure of other sites".
"The OECD recently contrasted Britain's position on pensions, health and education with that of other developed countries.The OECD forecast each country's national debt assuming they continue where their present pension systems and levels of taxes and charges. By 2030 in France and Germany"--
"the national debt will have about doubled and will exceed the national income. In Japan, where the population is aging particularly fast, debt will reach three times national income. By contrast, Britain's second tier funded pensions place us in an almost unique position. The OECD forecasts that we will have paid off our entire national debt and started to build up assets."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |