| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman's second point ignores the fact that the asylum claim gives a right to benefit entitlements--so it amounts to much the same thing. What was the hon. Gentleman's first point? He has forgotten.
Mr. Smith: The Secretary of State has forgotten. He claimed--I am astonished that he has forgotten this--that he was withdrawing benefit only from persons who are able to support themselves.
Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman does not realise that anyone who claims at the port will get benefit. Those who do not must have convinced the immigration authorities that they have the means to support themselves in this
country. It is reasonable to hold them to that assurance. They have given it, and demonstrated that they are not asylum seekers but business men, tourists or students.
Mr. Alton: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Lilley: May I make a little progress?
Mr. Alton: It is on that point.
Mr. Lilley: I will make a little progress. I am sure that this theme will run through our subsequent discussions.
As well as, effectively, accepting the regulations and reinstating them through the clause and the schedule, the Lords accepted an Opposition amendment to our clause, which, among other things--I shall return to those other things--extends benefits to those who claim asylum within three days of entering the United Kingdom. That has been presented as a minor change of limited consequence, which mainly affects genuine asylum seekers. If that were so, I would be very happy to accept it. I readily understand why, accepting it on those terms, John McCarthy and the Archbishops of Canterbury and Westminster, for whom I have profound respect, have given it their support.
In fact, the amendment is not minor. It would have major financial consequences--costing £80 million, and far more as people deliberately exploit the loopholes it creates and, of course, respond to the incentives it generates. Far from helping just genuine refugees, the change would be of the greatest help to bogus refugees, since it also creates a whole raft of new incentives for them to claim benefit as well as asylum.
I shall explain what the amendment would do. It extends benefit to three groups. First, it would give benefit to illegal immigrants. Since their immigration is illegal, we cannot say when they came in, so the three-day rule would enable any illegal immigrant, when discovered, no matter how long they had been in the country, to obtain benefits simply by declaring that they had only recently arrived in the country. [Hon. Members: "Nonsense."] Hon. Members display a degree of ignorance of the real world that does them little credit.
Mr. Tony Banks:
If the Minister lived in the east end, he would know about the real world.
Mr. Lilley:
The hon. Gentleman expresses a profound truth.
The change would also open up opportunities for people to circumvent the rules inherent in the Bill that will enable us to return people who come from a safe third country to that country. People who enter the country through the European Union channel at the channel ports or at airports by waving a forged EU passport at the immigration official would subsequently be able to claim benefit. That cannot be right.
Mr. Alton:
The Secretary of State raises a point about falsified papers and forged documents, which is similar to his earlier point, on which I was trying to intervene. Business men, students and people who are classified in any number of ways do not say precisely what has
If the Secretary of State or a member of his family were fleeing political persecution, does he imagine that the first thing on their mind when they arrived in the country to which they were fleeing would be to ask for the relevant form so that they could fill it out in the accurate way he describes?
Mr. Lilley:
My first instinct when faced with authority in foreign countries--I have been faced by the secret police in Uganda--is to tell the truth. I am afraid of getting into trouble by telling lies. That is most people's instinct. One reason why some people tell other stories is that, when they enter the country, they genuinely are business men, students or tourists, and subsequently decide to become asylum seekers.
One of the cases that was heard before the Court of Appeal was of a gentleman who came to this country from Bulgaria because he was a keen follower of the Bulgarian football team. He only subsequently decided that, having got here, he should lodge a claim for asylum. That surely should not entitle someone to the right to benefit.
Mr. Lilley:
I should like to make a little progress, because I want to get some further factual information into the debate. Hon. Members are clearly reluctant to consider the facts.
Those who support the amendment presume that anyone who makes a claim within three days of arrival is more likely to be genuine than those who delay making a claim for longer periods. I asked to see the figures. The figures for the last quarter, which are the only ones available, show that that is not so.
Ms Abbott:
The very first point that the Secretary of State made in arguing against the three-day concession was that it would allow any illegal immigrant merely to state that they had been here only for three days to evade immigration control. If he knew a little more about immigration and nationality matters, he would know that the majority of illegal immigrants are discovered because they are informed on. The same person who informs would therefore be able to testify that someone had been here longer than three days.
Mr. Lilley:
There may be some instances for which we would have such evidence. If informants were willing to come forward and testify, what the hon. Lady says would be perfectly true, but in many instances, that would not be so, and people would be able to circumvent the rules.
Mr. Straw:
The Secretary of State said that he wanted to impart some facts. Does he accept that the facts that
Mr. Lilley:
The exceptional leave to remain is exactly what it says it is--exceptional, and not a recognition of refugee status. In 80 per cent. of cases last year, people came from three countries--Somalia, Bosnia and Afghanistan. Those countries are currently in a state of some turmoil, so we do not immediately send them back, even if we believe that they do not fulfil the criteria of the Geneva convention.
Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North):
Could my right hon. Friend say in rough terms what proportion of those seeking asylum have come from another EU country? What would be the effect of reversing the Lords amendment on preventing illegal access to the United Kingdom from EU countries?
Mr. Lilley:
Several thousand people every year, and rising, come via an EU third country. That is why my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has taken measures so that we can, as the Geneva convention allows, return people straight to the safe country--France, Belgium or somewhere--through which they came.
The amendment would create a loophole so that, when it was advantageous for people to enter from those countries without declaring themselves, pretending to be EU citizens, and using a forged passport that they had only to wave at the passport official before destroying their documents and claiming that they came directly from their country of origin, we would have no option but to give them benefit.
Mr. Peter Bottomley:
The House and people outside would be grateful for what my right hon. Friend has said about the three-day proposal, were it not to have other disadvantages. I think that I am right in recalling that the archbishop's and the cardinal's letter said that the Lords amendment might not be perfect, and that some flexibility might be important.
Would it be possible, at least in theory, for the three-day rule to apply if it did not give any other advantages to the late applicant? If, for example, they were judged only on asylum rules and not on immigration and deportation rules, and they had to demonstrate that they had arrived in the previous three days, we would get rid of the problem about the long-term illegal immigrants.
Mr. Lilley:
The second point would not be possible under the Geneva convention. Under the convention, one is not allowed to discriminate against illegal immigrants. To have a different set of benefit rules and a presumption of proof that applied to them and not other claimants would therefore not be possible.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |