Asylum and Immigration Bill 2003

The Asylum and Immigration Bill 2003 was debated at Second Reading in the Commons on Wednesday 17th December. The measure in the Bill which have proved particularly controversial for some include those on; the removal of support for families which may lead to children being taken into care, the removal of appeal rights; and the charges for immigration applications.

I supported the Bill at Second Reading because I always believe that a Bill should be debated and those elements that people disagree about can be changed or removed in the Committee stage of the Bill. As always there is much I can support in the Bill. However, I do share some of the concerns about the controversial issues listed above.

I do realise that some myths have been created already and the picture has emerged of children being taken away from their families. I will seek the reassurances already acknowledged by the Home Secretary that these powers will only be taken in the interests of the child and not used as a punishment. I accept the point the Home Secretary makes that a family that refuses all reasonable offers and assistance (including flights booked and paid for) to return home after and unsuccessful application it is not unreasonable for the state to remove benefits at this very final stage.

I will look very carefully at the legislation and will reserve judgement about which aspects to support at final Committee stage if I feel the Bill goes too far in denying basic human rights - but balanced with responsibilities of asylum seekers to the system and rule of law.

What is the Government doing on the issue of asylum seekers?

The first thing I would say about this issue, is the need for a sensible, calm and rational debate about the situation. Sadly this is not often the case when some of our more rabid newspapers stir up misunderstanding and hatred on a daily basis.

Secondly I would want to clarify a number of things about what we mean. The term asylum seeker or even illegal immigrant is now often used to describe a wide variety of people who are neither of these groups. We, as a country need a sensible immigration policy, particularly in respect of economic migration. David Beckham moves to Spain to work - he is an economic migrant. We actually need people and their skills all of the time in this country. So there will always be a need for economic migration.

We also have had in the past immigration for a variety of reasons. In our own town of Loughborough we have a vibrant Bangladesh Community who have been here for over 30 years, contributing so much to our cultural, economic and social wealth. Too often I hear people term this community as asylum seekers. There is nothing further from the truth.

I know that most reasonable people understand the humanitarian problems that some people seeking safety in this country have faced but simply want to know where it will end, and others rightly indicated that many are, in effect, economic migrants abusing the asylum system. This is why I say it is important to allow the debate because we need to get in place a system that achieves the dual goals of being fair to asylum seekers and allows proper economic migration to be managed seperately.

We are witnessing a new global phenomenon of migration, not just to the UK but from poorer to all other richer countries across Europe and elsewhere. We recognised this problem when we came to power and immediately set about reforming the system and introducing new legislation (much of which was opposed by the other Parties).

Our new 2002 Nationality Immigration & Asylum Act is now coming into effect meaning - no benefit, identity cards, finger printing, speeding up deportations. In addition it allows us to remove citizenship from those who have obtained naturalisation through fraud or seriously prejudice the UK's interests. Asylum seekers have not been allowed to claim benefit since 3 April 2000 and we are in fact deporting around 1,250 failed asylum seekers a month - more than any other European country.But we need to keep some things in perspective. We have 90,000,000 visitors to our country every year of which around 70,000 to 100,000 may try to claim asylum -and only 15 recently held for terrorism. A terrorist would find it easier to enter the UK as a tourist, than be tracked as an asylum seeker!

We also have to remember that asylum seekers are not classed as illegal or economic immigrants and are protected under the 1951 UN Geneva Treaty on Refugees and the Council of Europe Human Rights Convention. We are working with our partners to update both these legal frameworks that were agreed when migration was of quite a different character. I must also say that I will not tolerate our existing minority communities, who have made a big contribution to our community, to be threatened by any climate of hostility arising as a consequence of irrational media reporting of the situation.I personally support tough measures to prevent the asylum system being used as a cover for economic migration. There is a place for the latter, but it must be controlled through a separate mechanism. So to confirm what I have said, we are aware of this growing problem and introduced new legislation last year. It must be kept in perspective.

In my Loughborough constituency there are less than 100 asylum seekers out of a population of around 90,000.

Last updated March 2003