| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Hartley Booth (Finchley): Does my right hon. Friend understand and appreciate the point made in the other place, that some people who arrive here in a state of fear and trauma may not understand that they have to claim asylum at the airport? Therefore, will he assure the House that all immigrants or asylum seekers are made aware of their rights in their own language at the airport or port?
Mr. Lilley: Of course people must have access to an interpreter so that they can deal with the immigration authorities. There are interpreting facilities in scores of languages to cope with people arriving from various countries.
The most telling point in the archbishop's letter referred to the difficulties that might be experienced by asylum seekers who cannot speak English. However, there is a degree of flexibility, as was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley). People who arrive at an airport or other port of entry with no interpretation facility are told to come back and complete the formalities in a few days' time. They are then treated as if they had just arrived and were making an in-port claim, although such a claim is made two or three days later. That flexibility will continue when the measure is in force.
Miss Emma Nicholson:
I am concerned about the plight of those who may find it difficult to speak at all, such as victims of torture. I have worked with such people. They have been so humiliated by the torture, which has degraded them as human beings and exploded their sense of identity, that they can hardly speak. Apart from their inability to speak English, it may take them months to explain what has happened to them, because they feel so abused, degraded and ruined. Of course they have forged documents. Otherwise, how on earth could they get out--by speaking to the secret police who are torturing them? That is just a joke.
Mr. Lilley:
The hon. Lady misunderstands what happens at ports. We do not expect people to know about our benefit regulations or understand the minutiae of bureaucratic detail, as has been suggested. They are simply asked why they are coming to Britain. If they are seeking asylum, they have simply to say so. Surely it would be more difficult for people in the circumstances the hon. Lady describes and for whom we all have immense sympathy to tell some concocted cock-and-bull story than to tell the truth, which is all we require of people arriving in Britain.
There is a misunderstanding about why so many asylum seekers do not claim at the port but wait until they are in country before lodging a claim. It is often suggested that the main reason is that they arrive ignorant and traumatised, but, since we have introduced changes to the benefit regulations, the number of people claiming in country has fallen by two thirds. The figure has fallen by
two thirds since last June. So it is pretty clear that the great majority of people learn pretty quickly about changes in the benefit system, and respond to them.
Mr. Madden:
The Secretary of State--I am sure unknowingly--is being entirely disingenuous, as there was a comparable reduction in asylum applications two years before the regulations were introduced. The numbers of asylum applications ebb and flow, for all sorts of reasons. The fluctuation is certainly not affected by the introduction of regulations.
Will the right hon. Gentleman elaborate on the point he was making earlier--that, in some circumstances, people arriving in Britain can be told to come back in two or three days' time and make an asylum application? Will he elaborate on those circumstances? Has he ever been at a desk in Heathrow when large flights are arriving at terminal 4? Has he attended any of those sessions? Does he really think that such casual conversations take place?
Mr. Lilley:
If the best the hon. Gentleman can do to explain the two-thirds drop in in-country claims since the regulations were introduced is to suggest that it is just a coincidence, he is grasping at straws. On his second point, about the problems of languages, Heathrow is well equipped with a vast array of interpretation facilities. However, other ports that cater for smaller numbers of people do not have facilities for every language. If someone arrives with an unusual linguistic requirement, such arrangements as I suggested might be necessary should apply.
Mr. Lilley:
I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle), who is a distinguished expert on these matters.
Mr. Charles Wardle (Bexhill and Battle):
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if anyone is disingenuous, it is the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden)? The last time that the number of asylum applications fell dramatically was immediately after applicants were required to turn up in person at Lunar house.
Mr. Lilley:
My hon. Friend wins game, set and match on that point. He is absolutely right.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow):
Will the Minister give way on that point?
Mr. Lilley:
As this is not Question Time, may I make a little progress?
Mr. Lilley:
Knowing the hon. Gentleman's persistence, I give way to him.
Mr. Dalyell:
I simply follow up my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), who asked the Secretary of State whether he had direct experience of such cases. During business questions on 11 July, I asked the Leader of the House the following question:
Madam Deputy Speaker:
Order. That was a very long intervention. The hon. Gentleman should wait until he can make his own speech.
Mr. Lilley:
I have not asked all my Cabinet colleagues, but as I represent a constituency with a large immigrant population, I have certainly had to deal with such cases.
Mr. Dalyell:
Within three days?
Mr. Lilley:
I have experience of cases involving people seeking asylum or in other ways in conflict with the immigration and asylum laws. The most recent case that I can think of offhand was within three days, but it involved the wife of someone who had entered the country illegally, who was about to claim asylum three days later. I do not know whether that falls within the hon. Gentleman's circumstances, but it is an example of what happens. All hon. Members are used to such cases.
The main reason why people claim in country rather than at the port of entry is that they are advised to do so by their relatives and friends, or in most cases their agents. Let us acknowledge that most people coming to this country as asylum seekers have agents. In almost every case mentioned in The Independent on Sunday report yesterday, the person concerned had an agent who had been paid to help them leave their own country and enter Britain. Agents give that advice because it is--or used to be--in the interests of asylum seekers to make a claim in country rather than at the port of entry.
Mr. Keith Hill (Streatham):
If the Secretary of State is right, and most in-country applicants have been put up to it by outside advisers, can he explain why in-country applications for asylum are twice as successful as in-port applications?
Mr. Lilley:
They are not. The figures vary from year to year, but in both cases they are very small. As I have just said, the proportion of successful claims among those who claim within three days is lower than for those who wait longer.
"May I ask a question that by implication could be interpreted as being offensive, but is not meant to be? Cabinet members have some 300 years' experience between them as constituency Members of Parliament. Can we be told, before Monday's debate, whether any member of the Cabinet, as a constituency Member, has become involved with asylum seekers within three days of their arrival in this country? I have, and it is a very chastening experience, because the asylum seekers are extremely confused when they arrive. I wish to know whether any Cabinet member or any Home Office Minister has had that experience in the course of their constituency duties."--[Official Report, 11 July 1996; Vol. 281, c. 582.]
The Leader of the House, ever courteous, said that he would make inquiries.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |