Minister for Border Security and Asylum says Government has statutory obligation to support asylum seekers and prevent destitution
The House of Commons held a Westminster Hall debate yesterday after two petitions calling on the Government to shut down asylum hotels, deport all 'illegal migrants', and end all support for asylum seekers both received well in excess of 100,000 signatures.
Image credit: WikipediaThe debate was led by Labour's Tony Vaughan, who emphasised the importance of compassion, legal obligations, and practical reforms to the asylum system. Vaughan dismissed the idea that the harsh deterrents proposed by the petitions, such as mass detentions, would achieve the petitioners' aims, noting: "It is easy to underestimate how incredibly desperate many of the people who are arriving on small boats are. We assume that deterrents will defeat desperation, but both the Rwanda gimmick and other populist plans assume too much about the psychology of the people making these dangerous journeys. Mass detention is easy to say, but it is just another gimmick—inhumane, extortionate and, I am afraid, completely pointless."
Labour's Bell Ribeiro-Addy said the Government has a legal duty to provide accommodation for asylum seekers while their claims are being processed, and noted that most applications are ultimately successful either at the initial decision stage or on appeal. She told the Commons: "The overwhelming majority of those seeking asylum in the UK have a legitimate claim in law to be here. For clarification, that means they are not illegal. The UK has a duty under international law to accept and process asylum claims. […] We should meet our legal and moral duty instead of fuelling a false narrative."
Conservative MP Peter Bedford, however, spoke in favour of the petitions, saying: "We must close the hotels and deport those who are taking advantage of our system. It really is that simple—we just need a Government with the gumption to do it." Bedford said the Opposition's plan to end the "endless lawfare surrounding illegal migration" and then to "deport, deport, deport" would provide a 'simple' solution. He added that a "clean withdrawal" from international agreements such as the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) was needed to enable a future government to be tough but fair. Conservative MP Katie Lam also backed the petitions, saying that "[i]f the Government were really serious about ending the small boats crisis, they would put a stop to asylum support and close the hotels as these petitions request."
Reform's Sarah Pochin told the Commons: "Financial assistance to these illegal migrants must stop. All illegal migrants currently in this country need to be deported. That is the starting principle of Reform policy."
Labour's Tony Vaughan, a barrister and KC, noted, however, when concluding the debate: "The idea that we could just junk our international obligations and deport everyone if we withdrew from the treaties is complete fantasy. As I said, we need the ECHR to solve the irregular migration issue. Had we not been in the convention, the UK-France deal would not have been signed, nor would we have had the credibility to work with international partners such as Bulgaria, Germany and France on the upstream issues. We would also jeopardise peace in Northern Ireland without those measures. The truth is that the common law has set its face against torture for centuries, so I am afraid the idea that without the refugee convention and the ECHR we would be free to send a person back to torture is legal nonsense and morally repugnant, and it would make the UK an international pariah. It would also run contrary to our British values of fairness and decency."
Alex Norris, the Minister for Border Security and Asylum, spoke for the Government in the debate. He acknowledged the public anger behind the petitions but said stopping support for asylum seekers "overnight" would leave many destitute, including children and vulnerable people, which would raise serious legal and moral concerns. He stressed that asylum seekers do not have access to the welfare system and that support is provided to prevent destitution.
He stated: "We have a statutory obligation to continue to support those whose claims are being considered, in order to prevent destitution. We have tightened the terms and introduced tougher sanctions for those who refuse suitable accommodation without a valid reason. However, we have legal and, I would argue, moral imperatives not to create mass destitution simply by turfing them out with no support."
Norris told the Commons that the Government was reducing spending on asylum support by £1 billion, including £500 million less on hotels, and was working to process claims more quickly to restore "order, fairness and humanity" to the system. He said asylum decision-making had doubled and that the backlog was down by about 18%, with reforms under way to speed up appeals and removals for those without the right to remain.
The minister said more than 35,000 people with no right to be in the UK had been removed, including a 28% rise in returns of failed asylum seekers. He also highlighted increased funding for the National Crime Agency and cooperation with France to disrupt criminal gangs behind small boat crossings.
Norris criticised the previous Conservative government for halting asylum processing, calling it the "original sin" that created the current backlog and the reliance on hotels. He said the Government would work with local partners to identify suitable alternative accommodation, such as military or disused industrial sites, and close hotels "as quickly as possible."
In closing, the minister stated: "This has been a robust and very important debate. I hope that those who signed the petitions in considerable numbers will have had the chance to watch the debate and seen that Parliament has taken their views seriously and had a thoughtful and constructive debate on them. This is a hugely important issue for the Government of the day. We have been working in overdrive since the general election to fix the chronic problems that we inherited. We will keep doing so, and along the way we will end the use of hotels once and for all."