| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
9.43 pm
Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire): The debate has been good in parts. Good points have been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House, but the attempt to smear the Conservative party on the issue of asylum, particularly by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), was beneath their normal standards. [Interruption.]
It is important--it has always been recognised throughout the House, in all parties--that refugees who are in fear of persecution should have a safe haven in this country. They come here because they know that this country has essential freedoms and has safety under the law. During the past 100 years, people have come from across the world to this country for safety. The Conservative party was in power for 75 of those 100 years, standing up for the rights of refugees and the international obligations that we have towards refugees. [Interruption.] We shall therefore not take lessons from hon. Members from other parties about standing up on behalf of refugees--[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chamber is now full. Some hon. members have not heard the debate, but are shouting from a sedentary position. It is unfair that they should do that.
Mr. Heald: As other hon. Members have said, one of the United Kingdom's other strengths--apart from standing up for individual freedom--is economic freedom. Consequently, the United Kingdom is wealthy and provides social protection. Consequently, economic migrants come here looking for a better life. It is difficult to criticise them personally for that, but we are a small country and cannot afford to take every economic migrant who wants to come here. Even the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington accepted that we cannot take every economic migrant who comes here.
Every economic migrant who comes to this country and chooses to make an unfounded claim of fear of persecution damages not only the system, but the position of real refugees--those who are in fear of persecution, who want their claim to be dealt with quickly and who do not want to have to wait years for a decision, with uncertainties and delays hanging over them. It is therefore right that we should have a system that not only attempts to find the genuine refugees who are in fear of persecution and assists them, but makes it difficult for those who are economic migrants. That was the previous Government's policy.
One cannot argue with the arithmetic, which is that, in 1996--after introduction of the measures so ably described by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who had responsibility for them--the number of asylum claims decreased by 40 per cent.
What has happened since then? Although we heard a lot of sanctimonious priggishness from the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who was fiddling the figures, the trend has been clear. Since 1996, there has been a build-up in the number of applications, and ever more of them have been bogus. That is the trend. In 1998, for example, 71 per cent. of claims were refused. In 1999--because of special circumstances in Kosovo--54 per cent. of claims were refused. However, in the final quarter of 1999, 80 per cent. of applications were refused.
Fiona Mactaggart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Heald: I should like to make a bit more progress. I have very little time to sum up, because of the lengthy speech of one of the hon. Lady's colleagues.
In January 2000, 87 per cent. of claims were refused. The trend, therefore, is that ever more bogus applications are being made.
Fiona Mactaggart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Heald: No, I will not; I do not have sufficient time.
We now have a backlog of 103,000 cases. It is simply wrong to say that such an increase in applications--as we have heard, there has been a fivefold increase in Folkestone and Hythe--should be ignored and should not be treated as a crisis. This country has occasionally to face such issues, and we must speak plainly. It is ludicrous to suggest that we should not be able to call it a crisis or to say that a doubling in the number of asylum cases is not a serious matter.
Why has it happened? We have had the Government's amnesties. We have had the failure to make employment checks. We have had abolition of the safe country list. We have had the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.
I should like quickly to quote to the Home Secretary comments by the Immigration Service Union--by those who have to deal with the provisions of his 1999 Act. They said:
- The proposed measures are an acknowledgement by the Home Office that it has abandoned the struggle to prevent illegal immigration--[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 22 March 1999; c. 455.]
- the criminals who are making vast amounts of money out of bringing people here to make applications are adapting their procedures to meet what we do.
Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman complains about criminal racketeers. Does he therefore welcome the fact
that we have impounded a lorry and are expecting a fine of £100,000 in respect of the driver bringing in 50 clandestines?
Mr. Heald: I do not welcome the fact that innocent lorry drivers are being penalised by the Home Secretary--[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We do not have much time before the vote. It is not good that I keep having to intervene in the debate, but I cannot allow shouting across the Chamber.
Mr. Heald: How can the Home Secretary say that he favours human rights and then support an offence that hits the innocent and guilty alike?
We do not apologise for talking about racketeers. The Immigration Service Union, which deals with these matters, talks about those criminals--as did the right hon. Member for Gorton. We do not apologise for talking about a flood of applications if the flow becomes an inundation. The Attorney-General spoke about floods of potential asylum seekers. Everyone with any sense knows that we have to deal firmly with bogus asylum seekers. The Home Secretary himself has tabled motions in those terms in the past. Lord Janner, who is certainly no racist, has spoken about the need to deal firmly with bogus asylum seekers. The Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary, the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) who is not in her place, and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) have all talked about bogus asylum seekers.
We are trying to make a case that the people support--that we should be plain and frank in our language and explain what the problems are. As the Opposition, we are carrying out our constitutional duty, which is to give advice. Our advice is that the Government should put an end to the amnesties and make greater use of detention in cases involving safe countries. We believe that there should be more removals, tougher enforcement of sanctions against illegal employment and better international co-operation.
Finally, in this country we hold our freedoms dear. They include the freedom to speak our minds--free speech. I for one, and my colleagues in the Conservative party, are not prepared to be gagged by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey or anyone else.
9.53 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): That was an absolutely extraordinary speech by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald). First, he clearly was not listening when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that we were still operating the so-called white list. I expect that he will be in very deep trouble with the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), who only recently admitted that the only amnesty that there had been in this matter was under the Conservative Government. The hon. Gentleman is certainly in a bit of trouble there.
There have been some very good speeches this evening. Unfortunately, they have not come from both sides of the House. I particularly commend the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton
(Mr. Kaufman). He rightly reminded us that many right hon. and hon. Members have the privilege of being in the Chamber today because of Britain's asylum system. I count myself among that group of people.My right hon. Friend quite rightly referred to the contribution that refugees have made to this country, not only over the decades but over the centuries. Last week I had the privilege to meet about 20 refugees. They are doctors who want to give their services to this country. We have a duty to make sure that when we give people refugee status or indefinite leave to remain, we integrate them fully in our communities, where they can keep their own cultural and religious identities, and offer them that passport to make the fullest possible contribution to society.
We need to restore credibility to the system. We want a system in place whereby we honour our international obligations to those who are genuinely fleeing persecution. We want to speed their cases and ensure that people are not kept hanging around for years and years. That is essential.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) spoke about rapid decision making. We have taken on hundreds of new asylum decision makers--my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) made this point--and they are there expressly to tackle the backlog of cases.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |