14 Jul 2003 : Column 1











House of Commons

Monday 14 July 2003

The House met at half-past Two o'clock


[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions


The Secretary of State was asked—

Asylum Seekers

1. Mr. Peter Duncan (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale): How many asylum applications have been processed since 1 January. [125053]

The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes): In the first quarter of 2003, we received a total of 16,000 asylum applications—a third fewer than in the previous quarter. During the same period, nearly 20,800 initial decisions were made on asylum applications, which is 6 per cent. more than in the previous quarter, and 24,600 appeals were decided—24 per cent. more than in the last quarter of 2002.

Mr. Duncan : I thank the Minister for that reply. She will be aware that asylum applications made at Stranraer and Cairnryan in my constituency have spiralled tenfold in the last two years, yet there are still

14 Jul 2003 : Column 2

no permanent Home Office staff in place, in port, to deal with those applications from vulnerable asylum seekers who need help. Will she commit herself to looking once more at the opportunity provided by the combination of Stena Line and P&O in one port facility to put in place the infrastructure so that these asylum seekers are dealt with quickly and timeously and their applications progressed much more quickly than at present?

Beverley Hughes: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's concerns, but I can tell him that it would not be an effective use of resources to have a permanent, fixed immigration post in small ports such as that to which he refers, which deal only with a common travel area. What is more effective is what we are doing: working jointly with the local police service and the Association of Chief Police Officers to have an intelligence-led approach.

The hon. Gentleman said that asylum applications have spiralled. Since January to March this year, four asylum applications have come through that port, which is a result of the measures that the Government have taken more generally to reduce asylum applications, not only in-country but at designated ports of entry throughout the UK.

Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock): Will my hon. Friend help me? I am truly bewildered about why the thousands of applicants for refugee or asylum status still awaiting a determination—after years not months—cannot be employed. It is a fact that all those people are working in what is known as the black economy. It would be much better if they were given conditional opportunities to work and pay tax rather than being a burden on the state and/or being under enormous financial pressure with their families. Why cannot they work while they are here?

Beverley Hughes: As I think my hon. Friend knows, those people who made a claim before July last year, when we changed the rules on employment, can work. It is those who have claimed since July 2002 who cannot work unless their claim takes longer than six months.

14 Jul 2003 : Column 3

That is because it is clear, in terms of the number of unfounded applications that we have been getting, that many people are coming here and claiming asylum when what they really want to do is work. That is a significant pull factor. That is why we have taken away the right to work for new applicants.

Mr. Speaker: Simon Hughes.

Simon Hughes (Southwark, North and Bermondsey): I had not asked to come in on this question.

Mr. Speaker: I thought that I had Mr. Hughes down on the list. Perhaps I will get him some other time.

Mr. David Cameron (Witney): It is not often that we see a tongue-tied Liberal. Is the Minister still committed to the Prime Minister's pledge to look at our international obligations under the treaties that we have signed on asylum or is she committed to more qualified majority voting on asylum and immigration matters? Surely she cannot have both.

Beverley Hughes: We have been round this course several times previously with the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends. What we have said on the treaties is clear: if that were to be necessary, we would do it. We do not think that it will be necessary, however, and we have made other proposals, which, on a multilateral basis, with other European countries, we think will be more effective. As for QMV, we have also made it clear that when it is in our interests to support that, we will do so, and asylum and immigration are matters on which it can help us achieve a better common policy across Europe, which is in our interests.

Mr. Gwyn Prosser (Dover): Is my hon. Friend aware that when the Home Affairs Committee visited the port of Dover last month we were hard-pressed to find a single asylum seeker to whom to speak? To what degree have asylum applications fallen in Dover and other Kent ports? To what does she attribute that dramatic reduction? Will she lend a word of praise to hard-working immigration officers on this side of the channel and in Calais who are helping to keep the numbers down?

Beverley Hughes: I will write to my hon. Friend with the exact figures for Dover. As I said earlier, right across the board, in relation to both in-country claims and those at designated ports of entry, comparing the figures for March with last October, we have seen a 50 per cent. reduction in asylum claims. In respect of Dover, he is right that that is in no small measure due to the hard work of immigration officials on both sides of the channel. Indeed, from January to March this year, almost 1,400 people have been stopped from coming to the UK as a result of the detection equipment in Calais. I might say that we are trying to build on those measures by bringing forward powers to enable police and immigration officers to exercise immigration control on French soil. It is astonishing that when that was debated in Committee a fortnight ago, Conservative Members

14 Jul 2003 : Column 4

divided the Committee and voted against a practical measure that will succeed in bringing the figures down even more.

Mr. Humfrey Malins (Woking): While the rapid processing of asylum claims is much to be welcomed, so too would we welcome the speedy removal of people whose applications for asylum have failed. It is estimated that since the Government came to power, some 250,000 failed asylum seekers who should have been removed have, in fact, remained here illegally. Will the Minister confirm that the Government actually intend to remove those failed asylum seekers? Does she believe that they will ever do that and, if so, when?

Beverley Hughes: I welcome the hon. Gentleman back to the Front Bench—it is a pleasure to see him there. As he well knows, while reducing the number of claims is an important priority, removing people who have come to the end of the road is equally important. The number of people we are removing is rising month on month. In March, 1,500 people were removed, which was an all-time high. Our policy of firm contact management—of retaining contact with people throughout the process, requiring them to report weekly and issuing asylum seekers with cards on which their fingerprints are marked—is part of our strategy to ensure that we remove more and more people. As he well knows, our figures are already much higher than those achieved by the Conservative Government in 1996, when 5,000 people were removed.

Mr. Jim Marshall (Leicester, South): Does my hon. Friend accept that although speedy decision making for fresh asylum seekers is welcome, many people have been in the country for several years on whom no decision, let alone an initial decision, has yet been taken? What steps will she take to speed up those people's applications?

Beverley Hughes: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. He will know that there was an all-time high backlog of 120,000 applications several years ago. That figure has been reduced to 35,000, which is not much higher than the figure for work in progress, but it needs to be reduced further. Of course, as we reduce the number of claims every month, we are investing more resources to remove the backlog. I expect that the backlog will be no more than a reasonable number of cases representing work in progress by the end of the year.

Prisoner Repatriation Agreements

2. Mr. Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight): If he will list the bilateral agreements the UK has for repatriation of prisoners before their full sentence has been served. [125055]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Caroline Flint): The United Kingdom has bilateral prisoner transfer agreements with eight countries and territories. A further six agreements have been reached but are not yet in force.

14 Jul 2003 : Column 5

In addition to these bilateral agreements, the United Kingdom is a signatory to two multi-party agreements covering 77 other countries and territories.

Mr. Turner : I thank the Minister for her reply. Is she aware that 10 per cent. of the prison population are foreign citizens and that a quarter of those—something like 1,700 people—are from Jamaica alone? Would it not be sensible to pay the Jamaican Government to look after those prisoners where they could be near their families, or even for us to set up a prison in Jamaica for them?

Caroline Flint: I know that the hon. Gentleman takes great interest in the matter, and that he secured an Adjournment debate on 1 July on it and other issues relating to the prison population on the Isle of Wight. The Government are keen to conclude as many prison transfer agreements as possible and 10 such agreements have been signed in the past 18 months. I am sure that he is aware that we have constantly asked the Jamaican authorities to enter into repatriation agreements but that they have decided against concluding such agreements with us and other countries. We are mindful of the situation and we keep all aspects of it under review and discussion, but Jamaica does not have the capacity to receive prisoners back at the moment.

Simon Hughes (Southwark, North and Bermondsey): Is there a bilateral agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States for the repatriation of British prisoners sentenced in the United States? If any current British prisoners under US jurisdiction were to be sentenced, would either current extradition arrangements or the new draft extradition treaty allow them to be brought back here at the request of the British Government?

Caroline Flint: There is no formal agreement, but we would not rule out repatriation. We have a good relationship with the United States Government and keep all issues under review. There has been a long-standing partnership between us and the US. We listen mindfully to each side of the argument in relation both to people from the US who have committed offences in this country and to those from this country who have committed offences in America.

Next Section

IndexHome Page