| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Asylum Seekers
3. Sir Teddy Taylor (Rochford and Southend, East): If he will make a statement on progress made in dealing with the numbers of asylum seekers. [121533]
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): We are committing substantial new resources to speed up all stages of the asylum system. Over 11,000
initial asylum decisions were taken in March--an all-time record--and the backlog of applications has begun to fall. We are determined to create a system that is genuinely fairer, faster and firmer.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Is the Minister aware that her recent visit to Southend-on-Sea, when she saw for herself the special problems of seaside towns, was greatly appreciated by officials and, unusually, by councillors of all parties? On the wider front, is she aware of the growing evidence from asylum seekers in Southend and elsewhere that there appears to be a highly organised international criminal group that is offering highly priced places in lorries to potential asylum seekers? Will she consult with the Governments of France and Belgium to see how that appalling activity can best be publicised and tackled?
Mrs. Roche: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks and for his original invitation to Southend. I was very impressed by the excellent work that has been done by a number of people in Southend, particularly by social services and housing officials. I agree with his point about organised crime. The smuggling of vulnerable human beings is a worldwide trade. Unfortunately, sometimes those involved are in cahoots with some of the unscrupulous immigration advisers whom we are determined to tackle. It is sad that the Conservative Government did not deal with that problem, but we intend to do so.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North): Will the Minister comment on the cost of holding a large number of asylum seekers in prison, the poverty of asylum- seeking families who are denied access to income support and forced to live on less than 70 per cent. of it and the violent language that is being used by many commentators and others towards asylum seekers, which permeates down and ends up in violent racist attacks on asylum seekers on the streets of this country? Will she call for calm, tolerance and understanding of the reasons why people seek asylum when they are often fleeing from oppression and injustice in their own country?
Mrs. Roche: I share my hon. Friend's view and that of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who has spoken recently on the issue, that across the decades this country has a proud record of welcoming people. I am pleased that we have had that policy, which this Government will continue. It would be nice to see more press attention given to policies such as those that we have promoted on refugee integration. However, we have to keep a balance. It is also right that we seek to deter those who make unfounded applications. While people are here having their claims processed, we must offer them sanctuary and safety, and maintain and accommodate them. It is in everybody's interests that we speed up the system. We are doing that.
Miss Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone and The Weald): Some weeks ago we were entertained by the spectacle of the Home Secretary greeting nine clandestine entrants off the back of a lorry. In a parliamentary answer, he subsequently told me that six of them had claimed asylum,
but he was not sure where the other three were. Is the Minister able to tell us how many of those six are in the country and where the other three are?
Mrs. Roche: As far as greeting is concerned, my right hon. Friend was visiting Dover to see the excellent work done by our immigration service in implementing the new civil penalty, which has been a tremendous success in the few weeks that it has been up and running. That throws the opposition of the right hon. Lady and her colleagues into sharp relief. The asylum seekers mentioned are going through the process in the normal way. The difference is that we are speeding up the system so that everybody's claim can be treated fairly. We will give refugee status--quite rightly--to those who have made a genuine claim for asylum. However, we will swiftly return those who have made unfounded claims.
Miss Widdecombe: So the conclusion is that six are still here and the whereabouts of three are not yet known. How many of the 37 who applied for asylum after the Afghan plane hijacking are still here?
Mrs. Roche: The right hon. Lady knows that those people are still here because they are going through the appeals process. Is it a new Conservative policy to remove the right to appeal? If so, the House and the British public have a right to know.
Miss Widdecombe: So they are still here as well. How many applications for asylum have been refused, including on appeal, since the Government came to power? How many of those who have been refused have been removed? How many are still here?
Mrs. Roche: In the last period for which figures are available, about 7,600 were removed. That is the highest number of people ever removed. To continue that, we will need more detention capacity at the end of this period. It is no good the right hon. Lady chuntering on if she wishes to deny the implementation of the civil penalty.
Mrs. Roche: I have given the right hon. Lady the figure. The right hon. Lady denies that her Government's record was much worse than ours and left us with a system that needed extra staff and resources. We are delivering; the Conservatives continue to oppose.
Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Inverclyde): They may not be genuine asylum seekers, but the Minister knows of my concern over the jailing in Greenock prison--a decision made by immigration officials--of two young Algerian brothers, Hisham and Mohammed Shetto, aged 15 and 17 respectively. They may be young scallywags, but they surely do not deserve such treatment. When will they be transferred to suitable accommodation? It has been put to me that they ought to receive a smidgen of the sympathetic consideration given to Mr. Mike Tyson.
Mrs. Roche: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who gave me notice that he hoped to catch your eye, Madam
Speaker, to raise this matter. It is certainly not normal practice to detain young people under the age of 18. However, detention may be appropriate under exceptional circumstances. I will be delighted to go into more detail with my hon. Friend. However, I can say that the ages of the boys are unclear. The brothers were given temporary admission into the care of the local authority, but their extreme behaviour meant that the arrangement could not continue. The Immigration Service is making strenuous efforts to find appropriate care arrangements.Security Service
4. Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East): If he will make a statement on the capability of the Security Service to monitor subversive groups. [121534]
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): The functions of the Security Service are set out in section 1 of the Security Service Act 1989 as amended by the 1996 Act. The Security Service cannot, on its own account, investigate activities, or planned activities, unless they are threats to national security.
It has been the long-standing policy of successive Governments not to comment on the operations and capabilities of the Security Service. However, I can say that I, as Home Secretary, and the director general of the service are both content that the service is properly resourced to undertake its statutory functions.
Dr. Lewis: All I can say in response is that they are two people with a minority opinion. Did not the Security Service used to have as its F branch a highly effective organisation for monitoring subversion on the extreme left and the extreme right? Is not it a fact that, both last year and this year, the Home Secretary came to the House bemoaning the fact that demonstrations in the City and Whitehall were impossible properly to take precautions against because of a lack of advance knowledge of what the demonstrators were going to do? Will the Home Secretary now confirm that it was a mistake for his Government to close down F branch of the Security Service as they did, thus enfeebling the ability of the Security Service to take preventive measures, notwithstanding the grudges that he and many of his right hon. and hon. Friends have against F section for its successful monitoring of their activities in the past?
Mr. Straw: I have to explain to the hon. Gentleman that I bear few grudges and I bear no grudge against whoever it was who thought that their days could best be spent on deciding whether I was subversive. Events showed at the time, as they have since, that that was--generally speaking--a waste of public money. The hon. Gentleman's definition of subversion stretches more widely than that of the director general of the Security Service and that in the Security Service Act 1989. The Act's definition is particular and, as the then Home Secretary--now Lord Hurd--said at the time of its passage,
- There is no power in the Bill to enable the Security Service to take any interest in any person or organisation or any activity or enterprise which presents no threat to the security of the nation as a whole.--[Official Report, 17 January 1989; Vol. 145, c. 218.]
-
That has been the template for the service since the Act came into force in 1989. On the other hand, the hon. Gentleman's view is that even the new Labour party is a deeply subversive organisation.
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the saving clause added to his question, because I cannot give a reply off the top of my head. I will look into the matter. I would also point out that if there is a responsibility for the fact that in any period in our history the activities of the Security Service have ranged more widely than they would do today, that responsibility ultimately lies with those Ministers directly involved--the Home Secretary and Prime Minister of the day--not with those who were public servants.
Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate): Does the Home Secretary agree that the capability of the Security Service to monitor subversive groups, or perform any other activity successfully, is wholly undermined by the example being set by Dame Stella Rimington in seeking to publish her memoirs? Does he further agree that members of the Security Service should be under a lifetime duty of confidentiality and that Dame Stella's actions set a wholly unwelcome precedent?
Mr. Straw: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. Members of the Security Service and other similar agencies are under lifetime obligations that they entered into voluntarily upon their employment. I understand that Dame Stella Rimington's manuscript was submitted by her in draft to the Cabinet Secretary in accordance with the normal procedures and will be dealt with according to those same procedures.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |