| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mrs. Gorman: My hon. Friend is entirely right. In my constituency at the weekend, I had the case of a woman
who has managed to remain here for five years by playing the system. She has given birth to two children while she has been here and she is so addicted to the social services that, when she needs to go shopping in Basildon, she telephones her social service assistant worker and asks for a minicab to take her there because she cannot bring back her shopping. That is a fact, which I will and could demonstrate if I had to. Such things go on and they get up the noses of all constituents, including those of Opposition Members, who seem to think it is funny that elderly British people, who are managing to live on their modest incomes, should fork out for alleged asylum seekers, who are simply parasites.
As I have said, Westminster has a particular problem and particular expenses. My purpose in bringing this matter to the attention of the House is to say to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health that Westminster's special circumstances should be given special treatment. Best of all, we acknowledge that, although this matter has to be dealt with, it is a national problem and should not be landed on the doorstep of a relatively small group of residents in the centre of London, who have many other problems associated with residence in London and who need to be given special care and help.
This matter needs to be aired because I am talking largely about Westminster. Of the 100,000 households in Westminster, more than half are on below-average incomes. Westminster has inherited many Greater London council estates such as Mozart and Lissom Green, which are given special estate assistance grants by the Government to help the low-income people living there, who have particular problems, but those people are all part and parcel of the community charge scheme. In addition, about 16,000 households live in either Guinness Trust or Peabody estates, which again cater specially for people on modest incomes. They provide good-quality homes, but, like everyone else, the people who live there pay their rates and 50 per cent. or perhaps more are elderly people on modest incomes.
As I was a member of Westminster city council, I have many friends among the residents in those places--people who used to be my constituents. It is true that, in many cases, they have made careful provision for themselves in their old age, have a small additional pension as well as their old-age pension and pay all their rent and their bills and ask for nothing from the state. They are proud and happy to do so. Such people should not be exploited by people who are exploiting the system.
In Britain, about 70,000 alleged asylum seekers are going through umpteen appeals against deportation. All of them can exploit the loophole provided by the National Assistance Act. It is an extremely important matter. I have outlined some of the costs in Westminster, but the people are distributed throughout Britain and other council areas will be grateful for the assistance that the Government have already announced. However, it ill behoves Opposition Members to laugh at this and to treat it as a joke. We know what they would do because we have heard it from the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman: they would sweep away the measures that the Government have tried to introduce and reinstate the previous position.
Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow):
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Gorman:
Would the hon. Gentleman forgive me because I want to sit down soon and let others into the debate?
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North):
This debate is welcome in the sense that it provides an opportunity to talk about the problem of asylum seekers and the situation facing local authorities. However, I think that the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman)--who, today, appears to be batting for Westminster council--should pause for a moment to think about why people seek asylum. Britain is a signatory of the 1951 Geneva convention, which requires that if someone is genuinely and legitimately in fear of persecution for political, religious or social reasons, they should be guaranteed a place of safety in the country to which they flee. That principle should be adhered to.
Britain has among the smallest numbers of asylum seekers of any European country. Compared to most other continents, Europe has one of the smallest numbers of asylum seekers. The real burden of the world's refugee crisis falls not on western Europe but on Mexico, Jordan, India and on other countries that are near to places where there has been great civil strife or which have Governments who are deeply oppressive towards their own people. So the idea that there is a huge flood of people trying to get into western Europe and into Britain, and particularly into Westminster city council accommodation, is slightly over-egging the pudding. It is also missing the point.
It is a major step for someone with a legitimate fear to seek refuge in exile. So far as I am aware, no hon. Member has been woken up by the police at 4 am, taken into custody with no rights of access to a judicial system, and, with his or her family, forced to flee into exile for their own safety. It is not an experience that most British people have had, and we should think very carefully about what a major step it would be to undertake such a journey.
When asylum seekers arrive in the United Kingdom, they must apply for asylum. Under the new legislation, if they do not apply immediately at the port of entry, their chances of being granted asylum are severely diminished. If one has grown up in Iraq and has always been completely terrified of anyone wearing any type of uniform, it is fairly unlikely that--after managing to steal oneself out of Iraq, possibly using false documentation, aliases, guides and other measures--one will trust a person wearing a uniform whom one encounters when first arriving at the airport. It is more likely that one would first get out of the airport and then think about the next step.
In the United Kingdom there has been a systematic erosion of people's ability to seek asylum and to have their cases properly determined. There has also been a vindictiveness against asylum seekers--it has been parroted in this debate by some Conservative Members--which has been promoted by some newspapers,
particularly the Daily Mail. For very many years, that newspaper has had a long and dishonourable record on this issue.
Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow):
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will tell the House what mandate he has from the British people to share their citizenship with foreigners.
Mr. Corbyn:
I am unsure how one answers such a totally ludicrous question. If someone has a legitimate fear of persecution, they flee abroad and try to seek asylum. Many people sought asylum from Nazi Germany. Presumably the hon. Gentleman, on the basis of his comment, believes that they should not have been admitted to the UK, and that people fleeing from oppression in any regime should not be admitted. He talks utter nonsense. I suggest that he start to think more seriously about human rights issues. Suppose he had to flee this country because an oppressive regime had taken over. Where would he go? Presumably he would not want help from anyone else, because he does not believe that help should be given to anyone else.
Let us return to the issues facing people fleeing areas of oppression. Currently if they arrive here, seek asylum and are refused, they have lost all access to benefits. They then have to undergo an appeal process, which can take a very long time. During the appeal process, what on earth are they supposed to do unless they are declared destitute and consequently supported by a local authority? We need to restore benefit rights for all people pending the outcome of their appeal. Not to do so is a gross abuse of individual human rights. Moreover, removing benefit is not saving any money because, in many cases, it costs far more to look after the children involved by placing them in foster care than by allowing their families to look after them in the normal and proper way.
We should consider the experiences of people who have fled countries. A couple of weeks ago, I spent several hours talking to a group of asylum seekers from Iran. That regime--despite the fatwa against Salman Rushdie and numerous other human rights abuses--is beginning to be cosied up to by the British Government and by the rest of western Europe, because they now prefer to support Iran rather than Iraq. The people whom I met told me, chapter and verse, of how they had been treated by the regime in Iran--of how they had been summarily imprisoned, with no access to the courts; of how their families had been beaten up and abused while they were in prison; and of how the regime murdered one man's fiancee in front of him because he would not talk about the secret activities that he was supposed to be involved in. I heard about many other similar cases.
Those people came to this country and applied for asylum. Their applications were refused, and they appealed. They are now living a life of virtual destitution, while the Home Office ponders what to do for them. Those people stood up for their communities against an oppressive regime. I remind the House that merely because a regime calls itself democratic does not mean that human rights are guaranteed. Around the world, many regimes call themselves democratic and have a multi-party democracy, but that does not mean that human rights are universally respected or that people are safe.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |