| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Lilley: I am rather sad that the hon. Gentleman, to whom I have previously paid tribute for his consistent
interest in the matter, did not express gratitude for the change to which he alluded in previous debates in this House--rendering the treatment of asylum seekers more similar to that of British benefit claimants by making their successful claims backdated to the beginning of the claim. I should have thought that he would welcome that, and the change will have the effect that I mentioned in my statement.
I am constantly in touch, as are my fellow Ministers, with groups working with asylum seekers. Almost all of them report that the outcome of the regulations was much less severe than any of them feared and most had led us to believe.
Mr. Graham Riddick (Colne Valley):
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the vast majority of people in this country find it unbelievable that foreigners can come here claiming to be business men, students or tourists, and, once here, can seek asylum status and qualify for state benefits? Is it not highly revealing, and a timely reminder to the British people, that, when it comes to a choice between supporting the taxpaying British public and bogus asylum seekers, the Labour party once again supports those who would be a burden on the taxpayer?
Mr. Lilley:
My hon. Friend puts it extremely well. The man or woman in the street would see the matter exactly like my hon. Friend, and would be mystified by Labour's position on this issue.
Mr. Mike Gapes (Ilford, South):
Does the Secretary of State recognise that the legal judgment gives him an opportunity to table an amendment that would allow a reasonable period--perhaps a few weeks--in which someone who had fled for their life to this country after having been tortured would have a chance to understand the procedures and would be able to make an application, rather than be left destitute? I am not talking about an indefinite period--just a few weeks. After this debate, will he think again and table a sensible amendment that might unite this House and the country behind a sensible policy?
Mr. Lilley:
The simple fact is that those who are genuinely escaping persecution come here because they trust this country and do not trust the country they are leaving. They come here to seek our liberties and protections--not because they are in terror of this Government. If they were, they would go somewhere else.
There is a legal distinction between those who claim at the port and those who claim in-country, in that it is more difficult to exercise deportation rights on the latter if they are found to be bogus. That is why many are advised to wait a while and make their claim in-country. I do not believe that it is right that people who come here telling one story should get benefits when they tell another.
Mr. Toby Jessel (Twickenham):
Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us feel that Britain has a long and honourable history of acting compassionately towards people abroad who have been persecuted--perhaps persecuted to death? But my constituents do not expect the Government to make the taxpayer pay for unlimited numbers of bogus asylum seekers, nor do they expect the
Mr. Lilley:
I am sure that my hon. Friend is absolutely right about the attitudes of the British public, who want to give refuge to the fairly small number of genuine refugees who come to this country to escape persecution. But the public recognise that there is also a great wave of economic migration, and--although there is sympathy for economic migrants--we need sensible immigration control, which should not be undermined by abuse of the asylum system. The role of the Court of Appeal is important, although I should not respond to my hon. Friend's question in the context of a specific judgment with which I have the duty of dealing.
Mr. Alan Howarth (Stratford-on-Avon):
May I appeal to the Secretary of State and to his party, on the ground of humanity, to abandon this policy, because it is cruel? If, regrettably, he intends to pursue it, I welcome the fact that he intends to do so by means of primary legislation. Have not the Government driven increasing quantities of substantial and contentious legislation through Parliament using the procedures for secondary legislation, which are perfunctory and subject to entirely inadequate parliamentary scrutiny? Should we not be grateful that the judges at least are willing to stand up for the decencies and liberties upon which previous generations of Conservative Back Benchers would have felt it their duty to insist?
Mr. Lilley:
The hon. Gentleman now finds himself in uncomfortable company, because his new party tabled a clause on pension-splitting measures during debates on the Family Law Bill the other day that gave the most draconian powers to Government, through secondary legislation by a Henry VIII clause, to alter any legislation by regulation. We have no intention of using those powers, and we shall introduce the measure through primary legislation. The Opposition wanted that clause, which gives a clue to the way in which they would govern this country if, heaven forbid, they should ever get a majority in this place.
Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock (Batley and Spen):
Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents will welcome his statement, as many people in my part of the world are sick and tired of paying taxes for illegal immigrants and people seeking asylum who are not genuine? Which countries would offer similar benefits to me were I to seek asylum?
Mr. Lilley:
I think my hon. Friend can be confident that she will not have to seek asylum either now or after the general election, and she will continue to exercise a prominent role in this country. But she is right about the views of British citizens, and about the fact that our benefits and arrangements are honourable, well tailored and--in many respects--superior to those provided in many other countries.
Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire):
At the start of his statement, the Secretary of State said that we
Mr. Lilley:
The Court of Appeal was delivering a verdict on a decision of Parliament--a decision endorsed by a healthy majority in this House and by a substantial majority in the other place. If there is any criticism, it is of the Houses of Parliament, and we must collectively bear the shame that the hon. Gentleman attaches to us.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge):
Anybody who wants to see whether there is a difference between new Labour and the Conservative party ought to look at the report of the exchanges in this House, as my right hon. Friend has announced today something that would strike most people as no more than ordinary common sense. Will my right hon. Friend consider--although perhaps not today--the fact that judges take it upon themselves to strike down laws passed by the Houses of Parliament? If judges now feel entitled to do this, should they not take a 70 per cent. pay cut and get some democratic authority, instead of subverting the constitution that they are in place to uphold?
Mr. Lilley:
My hon. Friend makes some telling points, which I shall not follow, for the reasons that I have already given. He is right to say that I am reasserting the decision of Parliament--seeking the assent of Parliament to do so by primary, rather than secondary, legislation. The role of the courts in this is a broader matter, to which I do not want to allude at the moment.
Mr. Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow):
Rather than complaining that the Court of Appeal did not address the issues, why does the right hon. Gentleman not admit that the court found against him in the most scathing terms? Before he rushes into primary legislation, will he remember that, before he introduced the regulations, he was advised against them by the Social Security Advisory Committee and every organisation and individual that works and deals with refugees? He ought to pause and remember that before rushing into primary legislation.
On the question of applications at the port, why, if applications at the port are the only ones that can be regarded as genuine, which seems to be his view, has the Home Office given refugee status to many people who have applied in-country?
Mr. Lilley:
The one thing I do recall about those who advised against introducing the regulations was that, in almost every case, the forecast they made of what would follow once they were introduced has proved erroneous. That gives me some confidence that their judgment was wrong.
Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham):
My constituents expect political judgments to be made by this, their elected House of Commons, and not by remote judges who have probably never met a bogus asylum applicant in their lives. My constituents--both Sikh and other constituents--live cheek by jowl with hundreds of bogus political asylum applicants. My constituents resent those people, who at their expense laugh all the way to the Benefits Agency.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |