| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman said that I needed to be taught justice. I was then being taught in company with judges in the lower court and the most senior judge of all who have heard this case, who agreed with my position.
The hon. Gentleman says that the decision is a damning indictment of our policy. If so, it is a damning indictment of a policy, on the treatment of benefit claimants who are appealing against refusal of benefit, that was supported on both sides of the House. The distinction that he tried to draw between the treatment of appeals against refusal of benefit and appeals against refusal of asylum was a distinction without a difference, and bogus in every way.
The hon. Gentleman says that we will not achieve the savings that we set out to achieve. On the contrary, our estimates of savings were based on the assumption that the measures simply checked the rise in the number of asylum seekers. To the extent that they reduce the numbers as they have so far done, the savings will be greater than we anticipated, not less.
The hon. Gentleman claims that the figures do not show a decline, but used figures for the number of claims largely before the measures had taken effect. The figures for the months since the measures took effect show a 7 per cent. drop in claims in March, a 27 per cent. drop in April, and nearly a 50 per cent. drop in May. He is simply factually wrong.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned a specific case of a claimant. I cannot comment on a specific case, but I can ask questions that he should have asked and answered. Did that claimant tell a different story at the port of entry? Did he come from another safe country and shop around countries before coming here? If not, why did he not make the claim at the port when he was asked his reason for entering this country?
The simple question that the hon. Gentleman did not answer is what Labour would do. Would it allow to stand, or reinstate, the court's decision and the old regulations, so that the House would be obliged to spend £300 million a year on a group of people of whom more than 90 per cent. are subsequently found to have made invalid claims? It is all very well for him to take the sanctimonious high ground but not say whether he would change things. He is like the Levite in the parable of the good Samaritan--only he does not pass by on the other side. He leans over, sees the Samaritan in the gutter, expresses great sympathy, and then says,"I shall subject your matter to a review." The hon. Gentleman is not going to say whether there will be any help from a Labour Government.
The simple fact is that fraud is wrong. The whole House recognises that it is wrong, whether it is perpetrated by a domestic claimant or a foreign claimant. Labour has always been the friend of the fraudster. It has now shown that it is the friend of bogus asylum seekers and the enemy of hard-working people in this country of all races, who simply want to ensure that we remain a safe haven but not a soft touch.
Mr. Peter Brooke (City of London and Westminster, South):
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the
Mr. Lilley:
There is a simple answer to my right hon. Friend's question: yes.
Mr. David Chidgey (Eastleigh):
Does the Secretary of State accept that the withdrawal of benefit has caused severe and intense hardship to some asylum seekers, and that changes in policies on immigration and benefits have created such fear among some of them that they are avoiding any contact with support agencies? Does he accept that those policies are standing the concept of British justice on its head? Under this regime, asylum seekers are considered guilty until they can prove their innocence.
Mr. Lilley:
Before the regulations came in, the Refugee Council said that there would be terrible problems and that the streets would be full of destitute asylum claimers. After some months of operation of the regulations, it has had to admit that
Dame Angela Rumbold (Mitcham and Morden):
Does my right hon. Friend accept that the vast majority of my constituents--I have a multicultural constituency--are absolutely fed up to the back teeth with fraud and asylum seekers' abuse of the system? They will be very pleased with his statement. All parts of the community have felt very strongly about the matter for a considerable time. Does he agree that it is monstrous hypocrisy of the Labour party to condemn his very sensible statement?
Mr. Lilley:
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her support for the measures. She is right to say that they are supported in all communities. I believe that they have a great deal of support among genuine asylum seekers--although little, of course, among bogus asylum seekers and those who try to misrepresent them.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South):
Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the Home Secretary, who is sitting next to him on the Front Bench, is partly to blame? If the system is underfunded, so that a claim's genuineness cannot be tested effectively and quickly, there will, of course, be delay.
What worries me is that, unless immigrants at the port of entry are able to see a friendly face rather than an official face, they do not often seek the advice and guidance they need, which leads to delay in registering their claim. Once they have registered their claims, they
do not have the support of family and friends--unlike resident applicants. Unless the appeal or their application is processed quickly, they are left in a state of limbo. If, in turn, their appeal is delayed--or, as we know often from experience, wrongly decided--the situation spirals. Are they to starve until they get justice?
Mr. Lilley:
The hon. Gentleman's initial question referred to the resources put into the system speedily to assess claims. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has considerably increased the resources. I have transferred to his Department from my budget £37 million to increase the resources further. It is impossible, however, to keep up with an ever-growing flow of bogus asylum seekers if one positively invites them here by promising them benefits when they arrive. As a result, the system is clogged up to the detriment of genuine refugees whose claims cannot be assessed.
I should have thought that the whole House would welcome the fall in the number of claims since the measures were introduced. The fall is predominantly of in-country claims, which suggests that the hon. Gentleman's rationale for such claims is not founded. People have learnt that, if they are going to claim, they should claim at the port of entry or not at all. It would therefore be right to reinstate the policy and reaffirm it, with the improvement that I have mentioned, which so far the Opposition have failed even to welcome.
Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North):
Am I right? [Interruption.] Did I understand it correctly that a member of the judiciary said that the policy of this House and this Parliament was "uncivilised"? Have I missed something? Do the judiciary now have a democratic mandate to decide which laws are acceptable, or does this House and Parliament, on the balance of views in the country, continue to decide what the laws should be, while the judiciary apply them without being informed by their personal prejudices?
Mr. Lilley:
My hon. Friend raises important points about the relationship between the courts and Parliament, but it would not be right for me to pursue those general points in light of a particular judgment that it is my duty to implement, appeal against or alter by primary legislation in Parliament--and I intend to do the last.
My hon. Friend referred to civilisation. Italy provides no benefits for asylum seekers at all, and France provides no benefits for asylum seekers after 12 months. In both respects, our provision is infinitely more civilised and better targeted than anything proposed by the Opposition, or provided in most other countries.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North):
Does the Secretary of State accept that the regulations introduced this year have caused a great deal of misery and poverty? Asylum seekers have been forced to sleep in churches and to beg on the streets, and they are afraid of going to authorities of any sort. Has he not created an underclass of fear in our society? Is it not time that he met some of the organisations that are doing their best to look after asylum seekers, who are quite justly pursuing appeals, to find out what they have to say, rather than pursuing his own prejudices?
"fewer asylum seekers than were expected have made contact with agencies or been visible on the streets."
To suggest that asylum seekers are so destitute that they are too afraid to go to people who can help them seems absurd. It suggests that, when asylum seekers do not need help, they go to people who can help them, but when they need it, they do not. That is not a credible explanation. The alarmist fears stirred up by groups--sometimes in very good faith, through genuine fear that the regulations would have a damaging effect--have not materialised. The claims about destitution are based largely on theory rather than practice.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |