| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
9.15 pm
Mr. Michael Howard (Folkestone and Hythe): The last time I followed the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) in a debate on these issues was on 9 November 1999 when we considered the Government's Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Then, there was much common ground between us, but I fear that there may be less tonight.
Four weeks ago, I spent several days investigating the impact of the large number of asylum seekers in my constituency. Of course, that was not the first time that I had done that, but on this occasion I visited the two reception centres outside my constituency that are run by Kent county council. I talked to the police, the education authority, and the social services department of the county council, and I visited Dover eastern docks in the constituency of the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser). Since then, I have had further meetings on the subject.
A number of constructive suggestions emerged from those meetings. I have passed them on to the Home Secretary and I shall refer to them later in my remarks. There is no doubt that the presence of large numbers of asylum seekers in a community the size of the town of Folkestone has a considerable impact. We have, I am happy to say, so far at least--we must be cautious about such matters--avoided in my constituency the outbreaks of violence that occurred elsewhere last summer. I am proud of my constituents and of the way in which they have behaved.
There is a natural tendency in such debates to concentrate on the national statistics. We heard them from my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), so I shall not take up the House's time by repeating them. However, when I went to Dover, I was given the figures for that port. I was told that, whereas 2,142 people had applied for asylum there in 1997, the number had last year increased almost fivefold to 10,347. In addition to that, the number of clandestine entrants applying for asylum there went up tenfold, from 851 in 1997 to 8,878 in 1999.
Why has that happened? The answer is not in doubt. The Government and their apologists sometimes pretend--the Home Secretary was at it in Home Office questions on Monday--that it is all the result of forces outside their control and that there was nothing that they could do about them. If that is so, one is bound to ask: what was the point of the 1999 Act? Do they expect it to have no effect on the numbers seeking asylum in the United Kingdom? Do they expect an increase in numbers over the next three years comparable to that which has occurred over the past three years? Of course not. They hope and expect that their measures will reduce the numbers; that is the point of their legislation.
When we debated the 1999 Act on 9 November, I remarked, when I followed the right hon. Member for Gorton, on the extent to which we had, at last, established
some common ground between the two main parties at least on the objective of policy in this matter. That objective is to deter undeserving applicants for political asylum, so that applicants genuinely entitled to asylum and genuinely fleeing persecution can have their claims dealt with speedily and effectively and can be given the asylum to which they are entitled.When we introduced legislation to achieve that objective, we were accused of racism; when the Government did it, they were legislating responsibly. Never mind, we should always welcome the penitent sinner. However, penitence has been long delayed; the Government have wasted three years.
During those three wasted years, the Government have done nothing to tackle the problem. That is why such an explosive rise in numbers has occurred. Yet the Government had the means to deal with the problem; they needed only to remedy the effect of the intervention of the courts on the operation of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996.
Mr. Howard: I note the hon. Lady's question and I shall reply to it and the Home Secretary's point in a moment.
Before the courts intervened, the 1996 Act succeeded in bringing the problem under control. The only requirement was a short Bill, which made it clear that Parliament had never intended to place on local authorities the burdens under which they have suffered since the courts' intervention. If the Government had introduced such a measure, the Conservative party would have supported them. The remedy was at hand.
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman got up first; I shall give way to him in a moment. The remedy was available, but the Government chose to do nothing for three years.
Mr. Gerrard: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman reiterate his arguments from 1996--that before their case had even been considered, people who claimed asylum should be left destitute? If he argues for that, I do not understand how any member of the Tory party can claim to uphold this country's traditions of giving sanctuary to people.
Mr. Howard: I dealt with that point fully when we considered the 1996 legislation; I shall tackle it again now. However, when the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) and the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) use words such as "starving" and "destitute", they should be aware of the effect of this Government's legislation.
As I understand it--I am sure the Home Secretary will correct me if I am wrong--anyone who has the temerity to apply for judicial review to challenge the decisions of the authorities on applications for asylum will be deprived
of all support. To use the language of the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady, that person will be left to starve, and left destitute. I shall explain--
Mr. Gerrard: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Howard: No, I am dealing with the hon. Gentleman's point, Let me explain the crucial distinction between those who apply for asylum at the port, and who would have been entitled to benefit under the 1996 Act--I do not apologise for that--and those who apply in country. When those who genuinely flee persecution and come to this country to seek sanctuary and ask for asylum arrive at the port, surely their first action is to say, "I have been persecuted. I want asylum. Will you grant it to me?"
Those who apply in country fall into very few categories: those who enter the country illegally, or those who arrive on false pretences. For example, they may claim to be visitors, and say that they have the means to support themselves and that they do not intend to apply for asylum. The Home Secretary was wrong to say that the 1996 legislation made no provision for in-country applicants to receive benefit if they applied for asylum. The legislation provided for the genuine cases.
For example, if people came from a country where circumstances had changed since their arrival in this country, they would be entitled to benefit. We therefore provided for those deserving cases. However, we told those who entered the country on the pretence of visiting, claiming that they had the means to support themselves and assuring the immigration authorities that they did not come to apply for asylum, that they could apply but that they were not entitled to financial support from the taxpayers of this country. That was the distinction that we made.
Dr. Harris: If we accept for a moment the right hon. and learned Gentleman's reason why people find themselves in that position, is he saying that the Conservative party's view is that the punishment for it should be to make asylum seekers and their families hungry and destitute?
Mr. Howard: It is not a question of punishment; it is a question of the circumstances in which taxpayers' money should be used to support people in that position. The Home Secretary says in his current legislation that taxpayers' money should not be used to support any asylum seeker who has the temerity to apply for a judicial review. We took the view that taxpayers should not be obliged to support those who do not apply for asylum at the first opportunity when they arrive in this country and who do not say, "I am fleeing persecution and I want refuge," but who enter the country on a false pretence and then expect to be supported by British taxpayers. We said that that was not acceptable.
Mr. Gerrard: On the question of whether, under present legislation, people may be destitute, I point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that one or two of us disagreed with the Government on that point and voted against the measures. Will he remind the House what were the relative acceptance rates for asylum claims in country
and at port when he was Home Secretary? For much of that period, the rates of acceptance for in-country applicants were higher than those for applicants at port.
Mr. Howard: The rates varied a good deal at different times and that may have had more to do with the way in which the claims were dealt with than with whether or not people were genuinely fleeing persecution.
Ms Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Highgate): I am sure that during his time as Home Secretary the right hon. and learned Gentleman must have noticed that there were people in this country who had entered it entirely illegally, and when a terrible disaster, such as a civil war, struck their home country, they applied for asylum. Is he saying that in those circumstances, he would have argued that they too should have been left destitute?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |