HC Deb 25 February 1997 vol 291 cc138-9
6. Mr. Cohen

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the impact of denial of benefits on asylum seekers and their families awaiting (a) a decision or (b) the result of an appeal. [15743]

Mr. Roger Evans

The changes that we introduced last year are reducing financial incentives for illegal immigrants and over-stayers to claim asylum.

Mr. Cohen

Were not the Government humbled and shamed by the Court of Appeal decision on 17 February that asylum seekers should be entitled to food and shelter, not starved as the Government wanted? Were not the Government cruel and wrong to make families, especially children, destitute while the asylum seeker was awaiting his or her appeal to be heard? Will the Government accept that judgment, fully compensate local authorities and now act humanely and responsibly?

Mr. Evans

The answer is simply no. As far as the Collins judgment is concerned, the courts have disturbed a construction of the National Assistance Act 1948 which has stood and been worked on for nearly half a century. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will be pursuing that matter further in the courts.

The hon. Gentleman should also bear in mind that the measures have been strikingly successful in reducing the number of in-country applications. Taking the last quarter of 1996 as opposed to 1995, the number of such applications is down by more than 70 per cent. The gross savings involved in those measures are in the region of £250 million for 1997–98.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes

Does my hon. Friend accept that, from the beginning, it was known that the changes to the benefit rules would have some impact on councils and charities and that councils would in the end be compensated for that? Will not most people think it reasonable and, indeed, justified that those people who came to this country on the basis that they would not be a burden on the state, who would not be able to claim benefits, should continue in that position and not suddenly change their minds and become a burden on the British state?

Mr. Evans

My hon. Friend is right. The three groups that are directly affected by those measures are, first, illegal immigrants; secondly, people who have entered this country saying that they are visitors, business men or students and have means to support themselves; and, thirdly, those who have sought asylum and have had an unfavourable decision from the independent adjudicating authorities, which have said that they are not refugees.

We have met, and are meeting, the extra expense placed on local authorities by special grant orders. We have said that, if voluntary organisations think that a case is genuine and deserving, and if they support that person in the meantime, almost uniquely in the benefits system, if the person wins his appeal, he will receive benefits backdated to the beginning of the period in which he made his claim.