HC Deb 03 April 2000 vol 347 cc611-3
5. Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley)

How much was spent on benefits for asylum seekers in (a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99 and (d) 1999–2000 to date. [115867]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley)

The estimated annual expenditure for asylum seekers was approximately £400 million in 1996–97, falling to £305 million in 1997–98 and falling again to £285 million in 1998–99.

A final estimate is not yet available for 1999–2000.

Mr. Evans

But we know that the figure will be higher. Is it not true that the measures that the Government are taking today, with the launch of a voucher scheme, are just a knee-jerk panic reaction to a situation that has gone completely out of control under the present Government? Is it not true that there has been an influx of bogus asylum seekers into this country, leeching off the British taxpayer and genuine claimants? Is it not true that Britain is now seen as a soft-touch magnet for economic migrants throughout the world, and that the Government need to get a grip on the situation?

It would be far better if, instead of trying to fuel the fire with alternative means such as vouchers, the Government introduced mechanisms now which stopped the tide of economic migrants coming into this country in the first place.

Mr. Bayley

Those who listen to today's events on "Yesterday in Parliament" will miss the look of shock and surprise on the hon. Gentleman's face when he learned that social security expenditure on asylum seekers has fallen year on year under this Government.

Mr. Evans

What about the council tax?

Mr. Bayley

The hon. Gentleman's complaints about the council tax would have more credibility if his party had not opposed every one of the measures that our party has introduced that have had that effect on social security spending.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)

My hon. Friend is perfectly right. It is obvious that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) was totally surprised by the answer that he received. Does my hon. Friend agree that, although there is no doubt that bogus asylum seekers should be dealt with quickly, the hon. Gentleman expressed quite clearly the racism and xenophobia of many Tory Members who are deliberately whipping up feelings about asylum seekers? The very same Tory Members have never shown the slightest interest in working and retired people in this country.

Mr. Bayley

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. The nub of the problem is that the number of asylum seekers banked up waiting for decisions to be taken on their cases increased under the Conservatives and the time that it took to resolve their cases and to decide whether asylum should be granted lengthened. Our policies are reducing the time that it takes for such decisions to be made. In the latest figures for February this year, there were 6,110 new applications for asylum, but 7,840 decisions. We are reducing the total, which is something the Conservatives did not manage to do.

Mr. Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden)

Can the Minister confirm that the figures for expenditure that he has just given do not include support provided by local authorities? Will he also confirm that the majority of those claiming benefit as asylum seekers entered this country claiming to have come here on business, for tourism or to stay with relatives? To do that, they had to convince the visa and immigration authorities that they had the means to support themselves and to return home. What will the Minister do to hold them to their word rather than allow them to be supported by the taxpayer?

Mr. Bayley

I have to ask the right hon. Gentleman why the Conservative party opposed the £2,000 fine on lorry drivers bringing people into this country. If he is serious about reducing the number of economic migrants coming into the country—

Mr. Lilley

Answer the question.

Mr. Bayley

In answer to the question, I say to the right hon. Gentleman that he will recall from his time as Secretary of State for Social Security that decisions taken by the Home Office on the administration of immigration and asylum matters meant that people were banked up for months and years while decisions were taken and expenditure was offloaded from the Home Office on to his Department. We are ensuring that expenditure takes place under the control of the Home Office, so that it has incentives for, and gains the benefits of, speeding up the decision-making process.