Oral Answers to Questions — Home – in the House of Commons at 2:30 pm on 13 February 2006.
What steps he is taking to tackle illegal working by asylum seekers.
The Government are firmly committed to preventing illegal migrant working and the misuse of our asylum system by those seeking financial advantage, rather than protection. We have significantly reduced the number of unfounded asylum claims since 2002 and increased removals of refused applicants. We have also strengthened legislation relating to employment by reforming section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 and by supporting my hon. Friend's initiative on gangmaster licensing. We are introducing new measures for a civil penalty regime and a tougher criminal offence for employers in the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill.
My hon. Friend is aware that, when asylum seekers are caught working illegally in this country, they are dealt with accordingly. What sentences are in place to deal with unscrupulous employers who lure asylum seeker workers into the country on the false pretence of improving their quality of life?
My hon. Friend raises a fair point. If we are being honest, section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 has not dealt with the issue from the employer point of view as successfully as was anticipated. Where it has been successful, that has often been in areas other than under section 8, which is why we considering strengthening the legislation. Last year, when I launched a migrant workers strategy and a statement with the TUC and CBI, both sides were in agreement that it was in nobody's interest to facilitate the arrival or employment of migrants illegally—asylum seekers or otherwise—and that we all need to work to secure a transparent managed migration system, and bear down as heavily as we can on those who employ people illegally, as well as on people who are in the country illegally.
The Minister concentrates his fire on employers, but does he agree that, if asylum seekers were detained while their applications were being processed rather than dispersed around the country, and if more failed asylum seekers were kicked out of the country, there would be fewer asylum seekers working?
In the context of the question and everything else that I have read and heard of the hon. Gentleman, no, I do not agree with him.
Does my hon. Friend agree that, whether working or not, it is vital that vulnerable asylum seekers receive high-quality advice to prevent exploitation and will he therefore agree to examine the plight of the Leicester refugee and asylum advice project, which faces closure despite providing an invaluable specialist service to vulnerable and often desperate clients?
I do not know the details of the specific case in Leicester to which my hon. Friend refers, but I agree with his general point. We are working closely with the Legal Services Commission as we implement our new asylum model to try to ensure that there is input from legal advisers at the pre-decision level. The greater the integrity of the initial decision on an asylum application, the better will that ripple through the system. I agree with the broad point, but cannot comment on the specifics.
Does the Minister agree that genuine asylum seekers coming here from their country of origin in fear of their lives would not jeopardise their status by deliberately breaking the rules set for them and does he therefore agree that those who are found to be working in this country should have their asylum status cancelled and treated accordingly?
I do not agree with what I think was the broad thrust of that question. Suffice it to say that the hon. Gentleman speaks only mildly better gibberish than his namesake.