§ 5. Mr. John MarshallTo ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about social security payments to asylum seekers. [39688]
§ Mr. LilleyI have put forward proposals on social security payments to asylum seekers and to other persons from abroad. The proposals are intended to reduce the number of unfounded asylum applications made in the United Kingdom, and to ensure that those entering this country on the understanding that they will not be a burden on the taxpayer cannot gain access to the benefit system just by submitting an asylum claim. Those proposals are with the Social Security Advisory Committee which, following public consultation, will report with recommendations in December.
§ Mr. MarshallWhile everyone in this country welcomes the assistance given to genuine asylum seekers, many people are appalled at the way in which this country has become the soft touch in Europe. Does my right hon. Friend accept that at least £300 million of taxpayers' money goes to asylum seekers—such as Mr. Abdelkader Benouif, who is helping the police with their inquiries into a mass bombing campaign in Paris? Should not such individuals be sent packing from this country instead of being subsidised by the taxpayer?
§ Mr. LilleyI confirm my hon. Friend's point about the scale of expenditure on would-be asylum seekers. I cannot comment on individual cases, but under the changes that I propose it would no longer be possible to extend one's stay in this country almost indefinitely by making appeals against refusal to grant asylum. After a rejection, any further appeal would have to be made without resort to benefits—in the same way as a British citizen who is refused income support does not continue to receive that benefit pending the appeal.
§ Mr. GerrardAs the law gives a right of appeal, is it sensible to put people on to the street? Appeals can take a year or 18 months to be heard. What are people supposed to live on during that time? If an appeal is successful—and people do win appeals—will the benefit be backdated to the point at which it was withdrawn?
§ Mr. LilleyThe hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening. In respect of appeals, we are putting asylum seekers in the same position as British citizens who are refused benefit—who do not continue to receive benefits while appealing against refusal. It would be odd to 583 continue the present situation indefinitely. I look forward to hearing whether the Labour party intends to oppose our changes. So far, Labour has refused to reply to my letter asking for its position on that issue.