HL Deb 02 April 1996 vol 571 cc35-6WA
Earl Russell

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Further to the Answer given by Lord Mackay of Arbrecknish on 16th October 1995 (H.L., Deb., cols. 577ߝ8), in which he said that the Government

Persons refused entry clearance or an extension of stay on primary purpose grounds in 1995
Number1 of persons
All nationalities Of which
Spouses and fiancé(e)s Bangladesh India Pakistan
Refused entry clearance overseas on primary purpose grounds:2
Solely for this reason3 n/a 150 300 510
Partly for this reason3 n/a 220 130 1,140
Refused an extension of stay in the UK on primary purpose grounds:
Solely for this reason 50 Nil —* 10
Partly for this reason 30 —* 10 —*
n/a = not available
—* 5 or fewer.
1 Rounded to nearest 10.
2 After taking account of successful appeals. Data relate to country of application not nationality.
3 Data on entry clearance applications refused on primary purpose grounds are available only for countries of the Indian sub-continent.

do not conduct research into the effects of disentitlement to social security benefits, on what grounds the Minister of State at the Home Office, Miss Ann Widdecombe MP, based her claim that withdrawal of benefit "does not have the effects that are being described" (HC Deb., 21st February 1996, col. 402).

Baroness Blatch

Under the previous social security regulations, asylum seekers ceased to be eligible for benefit when their case had been finally determined. We have no evidence that loss of benefit entitlement under those regulations had any significant impact on the number of people sleeping rough in central London. The regulations were however an open invitation to people from abroad to evade benefit restrictions by making abusive claims.

Under the amendments which came into effect on 5th February, asylum seekers will still be eligible for benefit during the initial consideration of their case, if they declare themselves on arrival or if their country has undergone an upheaval after their arrival. Those who gain entry on the basis that they will support themselves without recourse to public funds should be held to that requirement, whether or not they claim asylum.