TUESDAY 4 APRIL 2000
_________
Members present:
Mr Robin Corbett, in the Chair
Mr Ian Cawsey
Mrs Janet Dean
Mr Michael Fabricant
Mr Gerald Howarth
Mr Martin Linton
Bob Russell
Mr Marsha Singh
Mr David Winnick
_________
MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED BY THE HOME OFFICE
EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES
MRS BARBARA ROCHE, a Member of the House, Minister of State, MR JOHN
WARNE, Director, Organised and International Crime Directorate, and
MRS LESLEY PALLETT, Head of EU and International Unit, examined.
Chairman
1. Good morning, Mrs Roche, or perhaps I should say welcome home,
when I recall very well that you were for two years a member of this
Committee, and then life altered. Would you be kind enough to tell us who is
with you today, please.
(Mrs Roche) Thank you for your very kind welcome, Chairman. As I say,
it is a rather nerve-wracking occasion this morning. I was about to say that
I feel rather like a gamekeeper turned poacher, coming back to this Committee
today, where I spent two very happy years. Thank you very much for your kind
invitation. First of all, if I may introduce my officials. John Warne is the
Director of the Organised and International Crime Directorate. I ought to
make it clear, fighting organised crime! Also, Lesley Pallett, who is the
Head of the European Union and International Unit. Until recently, Mrs
Pallett was Head of the European Directorate in the Immigration and
Nationality Directorate.
2. We were expecting Mr Potts, as you will have seen. Were we
misinformed?
(Mrs Roche) Yes. Mr Potts is not joining us today.
3. Okay. May we just have a look at the last Justice and Home
Affairs Council meeting. Could you explain to us what the United Kingdom was
able to contribute to the open debate on victims in the EU jurisdiction areas,
and what action you expect to follow from that debate.
(Mrs Roche) We had a very good debate on victims. We had a round
table debate, which took some time, but it was an extremely worthwhile debate
and I, on behalf of the United Kingdom, very much welcomed the focus on
victims. The first point I made was that I very much felt that in our
criminal justice system the needs of victims have not always been to the
forefront of those decisions. The key aspects I was able to highlight, as far
as the United Kingdom were concerned, were of course the very valuable work
of Victim Support which, of course, the Government supports. To praise the
work of the volunteers, who give so much of their time to Victim Support. I
am sure we all have examples, as constituency Members of Parliament, of the
very valuable work they do. I think they have something like 11,000
volunteers, which is a tremendous amount. It is very much in the great United
Kingdom tradition of volunteering. To talk about the Criminal Injuries
Compensation Scheme, which is a very good scheme, but also to look to see what
we can learn from other Member States. There are some seminars and
discussions that are coming up on this. I very much hope that what we will
be able to do is to benchmark what we do. That we will also be able to have
some input into looking to see what other Member States do and to see whether
we can learn from them, particularly in some areas about the rights of victims
when they are to be informed about the conduct of criminal proceedings. We
also had a very useful presentation by the Commission on the "scoreboard" of
the Tampere work, basically a timetable for action post-Tampere. There is,
in our view, more for the Commission to do here, but we feel that the
Commissioner Vittorino has made very good progress in this area. What the
Commissioner has done is to do a talk in the capitals. He has gone round and
spoken to all Member States. He came here quite recently. I had a very
useful meeting with him. He had a very useful meeting with the Home
Secretary. We certainly feel that he has taken on board some of the issues
that we want to have. We had a discussion on the draft Mutual Legal
Assistance Convention and also other issues were discussed with the European
Refugee Fund. We were looking at the Dublin Convention too and also, very
importantly, discussing an initiative from ourselves, an anti-drugs
initiative, which has come from the Prime Minister personally, and which the
Prime Minister has launched. There are two main themes of that anti-drug
initiative. First of all, looking at applicant countries and what more we can
do with applicant countries in various programmes, like the PHARE programme,
to look at joint working with them over a number of things, so that we can
make sure that, in working with them, their strategies to combat trafficking
in drugs is in place; but also, as far as EU Member States are concerned, to
look at minimum sentences as well, where drug trafficking is involved. I hope
that is just a useful introduction into some of the last Council. It was very
much an interim council. We are looking forward to taking it further in May.
4. You mentioned the Tampere" scoreboard". Do you know if it is
proposed to publish the draft proposals of that? If not, when do you expect
the final version to be published?
(Mrs Roche) It is still very much in draft at the moment. I think
there is a bit more work that needs to be done. I would certainly look
towards May for seeing some progress on this one.
5. Do you find that useful?
(Mrs Roche) If I can say this, if you look at what has happened post-
Tampere, there is now a vast agenda for the Council. I think it is very
important that we do not lose sight of the main thrust of what we do; that we
have a sense of priorities as far as this is concerned. So I think this is
a very useful exercise. Of course, the key task of all of this is to make
this as practical as we possibly can.
6. In terms of brickbats and bouquets, as a result of this Justice
and Home Affairs meeting, what would you give to what? Where would the
bouquets go, first of all?
(Mrs Roche) I think it was a pretty good working meeting. We had the
advantage of having an informal two days in Lisbon earlier. That gave members
of the Council the opportunity to have some broad-ranging discussions. It was
very much a practical working Committee. However, I think we would look for
a bit more progress come May. But it is not at all bad.
7. And the brickbats? What disappointed you?
(Mrs Roche) I do not think there were any overall disappointments.
What we need to do to is to make sure that we get some of the items
progressed. Overall, I thought it was a very good working council. There was
certainly very much a feeling that the Commission were making quite a lot of
progress in these areas.
Mr Fabricant
8. Just a quick one. You said earlier on that there were going to
be future meetings with other countries, in order to learn from them regarding
the way they deal with victims. I was just curious as to which countries in
particular impressed you, and why, in the way they deal with this.
(Mrs Roche) I think all of the countries were quite interesting. Some
of them had similar things. Some of them would have other things. But there
are ways in which we can learn from the way victims' families can be kept
informed throughout the process; arrangements as to the seating arrangements,
where victims' families can be placed in court. All of those things. We have
moved on a lot. There is also the recognition now that it is not, say, for
example, just for one particular section of the criminal justice system. It
is not just for the police. The police have a tremendous role to play as far
as victims are concerned but it is all sections. It is the way the judiciary
deal with victims. It is the Crown Prosecution Service. It is something that
we have to keep in mind. I very much felt from the basis that far too often,
(and it is not just ourselves), that the rights of the victim have not been
to the forefront and, of course, obviously in very tragic cases, there are
also the rights of the victims' families. I thought this was really a mark
of the importance of this but nothing which we must be complacent about.
9. So there was no particular scheme that you witnessed or heard
about in another country?
(Mrs Roche) Not one thing. I do not want to be complacent about this
but we can take quite a lot of pride in our Criminal Injuries Compensation
Board Scheme and we can take a lot of pride in our Victim Support, but I do
not want to be complacent about it. I think probably the one thing I would
like to learn a little bit more from others is perhaps the way in which
victims are treated in the court process: the seating arrangements, that sort
of courtesy and involvement. There is a lot more to do in this area.
Chairman: Can we now move on to a major area - I was going to say a
major area of your responsibility - because I suspect it takes up the biggest
part of your time: asylum and immigration. Mr Linton.
Mr Linton: It is day two, of course, of the Immigration and Asylum Act
and it may be too early to ask you about how it is going, although you are
able to say, I am sure, what may be of interest to the Committee.
Chairman: Did you bring any leaflets for us!
Mr Linton
10. We wanted to explore how far immigration and asylum should be
approached on a collective basis in the EU, and how far on a unilateral or
bilateral basis. Could I explore the areas, which seem obviously intended for
collective action, such as presumably the Dublin Convention or EURODAC or
immigrant smuggling; and the areas that may be less open to collective action.
(Mrs Roche) What yesterday marked was the roll-out of a couple of very
important aspects of the legislation, which is the civil penalty and also the
National Asylum Support Service. I felt rather like on Friday - and I am sure
members of the Committee will understand this - I remember saying to my
officials that a lifetime in politics of handing out leaflets to unwilling
recipients would stand me in very good stead and so it proved. There are, of
course, as far as the United Kingdom is concerned, things that we very much
want to do. That is, because of our geography and history, they are unique
to us in the controlling of our borders; and keeping control of our borders
is absolutely essential. That is the special recognition that we have.
Clearly there are things that can be done together and I am very glad that you
mentioned smuggling. I know it is appreciated by this Committee, (but I do
not think it is appreciated enough), that there is a world-wide, heavily
organised trade in the smuggling and trafficking of people - two slightly
different things, smuggling and trafficking - but there is a world-wide trade.
We are seeing organised criminal gangs - probably very much the same sorts of
gangs that are or have been involved in the drugs trade - organising this
despicable trade in the smuggling of human beings. There are people who are
making a great deal of money from doing this. Quite clearly there are things
that we can do. There are things that intelligence services and police
agencies throughout the EU and with like-minded countries can do to disrupt
those routes and those gangs. That is what we are absolutely committed to do.
As far as the EU is concerned, there are a number of measures that we will
look at and then we will decide whether we wish to opt into. One of the
things that you mentioned was EURODAC. That is very important. We have made
a decision so to deal with that. EURODAC is important because what it does
is provide that exchange of fingerprints of those seeking asylum. We know,
unfortunately, that there are asylum seekers who claim asylum, who may well
have made several claims in different Member States. Of course, the reason
why we feel very strongly about this is because that brings nothing but
discredit to the system. Therefore, we think EURODAC is something we very
much want to see and is going to make our life easier. You mentioned the
Dublin Convention, which has been in operation since 1997. As far as Dublin
is concerned, we are a net beneficiary from Dublin by about a factor of 30 to
one. Having said that, although we think the Dublin Convention is good in
principle, in practice it can be quite slow, so we would certainly be looking
to see what we can do about that. The other important thing we are looking
at is common standards of reception of those seeking asylum, so that we
prevent the concept of asylum shopping. In a nutshell, what we are trying to
do is to have a system of asylum in place by which we honour our long-standing
traditions of giving sanctuary and protection to those genuinely fleeing
persecution, but we deter those who are making unfounded claims.
11. Could I just pursue the point about bilateral agreements. It
seems that Italy and other countries have approached the issue in a bilateral
way, with agreements with Albania and all sorts of other countries. In terms
of controlling the flow of asylum seekers from other countries, is there some
scope for that, or would you prefer to see everything done on a collective
basis?
(Mrs Roche) The approach we take, because we have the opportunity to
opt in, we look at every measure. We seek to improve every proposal of our
EU partners but clearly looking at the United Kingdom interest. Then we
decide whether it is suitable for us. There are obviously always things we
would want to do individually. I think what you are referring to bilaterally
are readmission agreements, whereby say you have somebody who has applied for
asylum in the UK or a Member State, and at the end of the process the
application has failed and it is decided to remove the person, there are some
countries where it can be very difficult to remove people. The process can
be very slow and bureaucratic.
Chairman
12. Even when it is their own nationals?
(Mrs Roche) Yes. There is sometimes a difficulty. It is a difficult
one in that sometimes you are dealing with people who have destroyed all of
their documents; so you then have to show to the receiving state that they are
a national. That can be quite a complicated process for my officials, which
is why I am going to be increasing resources in that particular area. I get
personally involved where we have a situation, where we know that person is
a subject of that state. It is trying to readmit them. I am absolutely
determined to put resources into that area. In some cases we do not have any
difficulty with readmission agreements. As far as we are concerned,
readmission agreements would only be sensible where there was a particular
perceived difficulty. Our concern about readmission agreements is that they
can give you another bureaucratic layer for delay. So we look to see where
this is practical. With many countries we do not have a problem.
Bob Russell
13. Minister, bearing in mind that a lot of asylum seekers arrive in
this country via EU countries, why is that? Is it because some of the
European countries are turning a blind eye; almost encouraging asylum seekers
to come to the United Kingdom rather than dealing with the issue in their own
country?
(Mrs Roche) I do not think that is the case. We have very good
relationships with other EU Member States, who are seeing some of the same
difficulties that we are seeing. We exchange information, we exchange
intelligence information. One very good example that has happened very
recently is that we have exchanged a lot of information with the French
authorities. On the basis of the information that we have supplied and their
activity, we have had large numbers of facilitators, the criminals who
organise this trade, arrested; and a number of them have received prison
sentences. That is good. The difficulty that we are facing - I come back to
what I was saying earlier to Mr Linton - is this trade in the trafficking of
people. You are talking about very, very sophisticated gangs. I do not think
we ought to pretend that these are amateurs. They are not. They are very
sophisticated gangs. They know about the transporting of people, so people
are bundled into lorries - there is nothing dignified about this process - and
smuggled in, in this way. Quite clearly, if we can show where it is that
somebody entered the EU, then we will return them under the Dublin Convention.
We do return people under the Dublin Convention. As I say, we are very much
a net beneficiary on that. We want it to work much more efficiently. The
difficulty that we will have, as I say, is when people destroy documents.
There is no doubt in my mind that if we have some more common standards in
terms of the reception of asylum seekers, then we can prevent this asylum
shopping, where people can look at what is the best deal on offer rather than,
if you are a genuine asylum seeker, what you want is safety and security and
a level of maintenance while your claim is being determined.
14. Are you looking to our European colleagues to be more rigorous
in their activities to deter asylum seekers reaching the United Kingdom
through their countries?
(Mrs Roche) I think your question is a very good one. In all the
councils that I have done recently the question of people smuggling, of
illegal entry, is going higher and higher up the agenda. So, for example,
quite a lot of the discussion about the operational police chiefs coming
together has centred on this. This is now going to be a major focus of
people's attention.
Mr Howarth
15. Minister, following on from what Mr Russell was saying about the
arrangements of our Continental partners - leaving aside the question of the
organised gangs, which we all agree is reprehensible - nevertheless there is
very clear evidence that the French authorities, on the other side of the
Channel at Calais, are simply not being rigorous in enforcing the controls.
They are openly allowing people to come to this country. I was phoned up late
one night by a reporter from the Daily Mail saying, "You would never believe
what is going on here. We are watching it with our own eyes. The French
officials are doing nothing." What steps are you taking to try and force our
Continental partners to act in a more communautaire spirit?
(Mrs Roche) If there are concrete examples, please do let me have
them, Mr Howarth, and I will take them up with the French authorities. Let
me assure you, both at ministerial level and at official level, the contacts
are extremely good. They are not just talking contacts. They are operational
contacts. I do not think that is necessarily the accurate picture, if one
might say so. If you have some isolated examples of where people are doing
what they should not be doing, please let me know and I promise we will
investigate it. Just to say, my immigration officers and the officers of the
appropriate agencies in France and around Calais, work incredibly closely
together. There is a lot of work that goes on behind the scenes. There is
a lot of exchange of information. As I say, we would not have arrested the
number of facilitators that we have, and actually prevented entry in a large
number of cases, if we did not have the co-operation that we are getting.
That is why the civil penalty is so important. It is very important indeed
as a way of deterring those who would abuse the system.
16. I would like to say I have given the Home Secretary a specific
example, raised by a constituent of mine in Aldershot, whose son is a lorry
driver and told his father precisely what was going on. Under the eyes of
French officials, these people were just clambering onto lorries. That is why
the lorry drivers feel very aggrieved because they are not being helped by the
French authorities. Furthermore, there was a very good article in the
newspaper, following the reporter's visit to Calais.
(Mrs Roche) I saw it, yes.
17. I hear what you are saying about your contacts with your
counterparts on the Continent but it does seem that there is, at the very
least, scope for improvement, do you not think?
(Mrs Roche) Of course. I have read all the reports. That is what we
seek to do but part of the co-operation is, for example, the agreement that
we have just signed with the French authorities over the Eurostar; the checks
we are making now; the criminals and the facilitators that are now being
prosecuted on the exchange of information. If there are examples, Mr Howarth,
we will rigorously look at those and bring them to the attention of the French
authorities. But what we are dealing with is very determined gangs of
criminals, who are determined to get in. That is why I am equally determined
to be very vigorous, as far as the civil penalty is concerned. That is why
yesterday, at Dover, we were searching every lorry. We will be as vigorous
as we can be.
Chairman
18. It seems to me that the civic authorities from Calais, (the term
"councillors", as it were), has said that they simply cannot afford to detain
people who they reasonably believe are illegal immigrants. The financial
consequences are too severe, which may touch on the point Mr Howarth was
making. Have you heard that?
(Mrs Roche) I know it is a lively debate in France, as it is in the
United Kingdom; but, as far as I am concerned, the key thing that we have to
do is to have effective measures at our ports which is why, as I say, the
civil penalty is so important. I do not have the latest up-to-date
information but from the last time I checked last night - as I say, we had
checked most lorries going through - and we did not find any clandestine
entrants, where we would just put on the civil penalty. That is an
illustration of how powerful the civil penalty is. I would not be complacent
about it but that was my up-to-date information as to when I left last night.
Mr Winnick
19. These criminal gangs - and they are obviously criminal gangs,
Minister, who engage in this vile traffic - what information does the Home
Office have, or at least is willing to put into the public domain at this
stage, of these gangs? Are they small time criminals or is it more highly
organised across Europe?
(Mrs Roche) That is a very good question. Sometimes it will be small;
it will be people at the other end. Sometimes it will be people connected
with this country. We have all come across the unscrupulous immigration
advisers, which you were kind enough to mention when I was on the Home Affairs
Select Committee before. I remember some of the work we did on that. At the
worst, some of those immigration advisers are not just unscrupulous, they are
corrupt. They connive in this trade. Sometimes it is quite international.
We were talking before about our ports, at what is happening in that direct
traffic; but, of course, there is sometimes a world-wide trade. So, for
example, let me give you a very graphic example, Mr Winnick. Somebody comes
in on a long-haul flight to Heathrow. They come from a country where there
is no trouble or persecution of any kind, if one looked at the situation. By
the time they arrive at Heathrow, (and you know the size of Heathrow), they
will get on the aeroplane with documents - perhaps legitimate documents
identifying them, a proper passport - but by the time they come to Heathrow
they have been met by one by the facilitators, and by the time they arrive at
the immigration desk those papers would have been destroyed and they would be
claiming to be a national from a totally different country. That gives you
some graphic example of just how organised it is. Sometimes there are bizarre
routes that people come through, with people helping the trade. It is very
complicated. The one thing I can reassure you is this is not just a matter
for myself, as the Minister of State concerned, with immigration. I have
regular discussions with Charles Clarke, my fellow Minister of State, who has
policing and crime. We have done some joint presentations together as well.
What we want to get across is that this is now a major criminal activity;
probably when we look at organised crime, one of the most organised activities
that there is.
20. Do you mean over the prices that are charged by these criminals?
Presumably in thousands of pounds?
(Mrs Roche) Yes. Sometimes it can just be a few hundred. There are
some routes where it can be perhaps œ300 for a little bit of the stage but in
some particular countries, of course, Mr Winnick, œ300 is an awful lot of
money. It depends. This is a market. It will depend on the extent of the
services that are being provided. So, for example, it may well be that you
are not going to claim asylum at the end of process. That what you are going
to do is that you are going to have a situation where you will not claim
asylum but you will work illegally. It may well be that fake documents, a
fake passport, will be provided as part of the facilitator's price. We are
talking about thousands of pounds there. Again, we are talking about very big
money. Of course, one of the big challenges for my officials is in the
detection of false passports. If I may, I would like to take this opportunity
to pay tribute to the Immigration Service because, I have to say, I have
looked at these passports. I, myself, certainly cannot tell which are genuine
and which are not but they can. Given the fraction of the time they have when
somebody comes through, it is quite amazing that they are able to do this.
21. One last question and we touched on this. We are not necessarily
talking about bogus asylum seekers, although I accept there might be some in
that category. However, one assumes that in some instances, at least, these
are people who are genuinely trying to move away from a situation where they
can face much punishment, including torture and death, but as a result of the
way in which we are being exploited, they are given a cover story which simply
does not add up and totally undermines their case when they are appealing for
asylum. Would that be an accurate scenario?
(Mrs Roche) You get very, very different categories. First of all,
you will have people who quite clearly have a well founded fear of
persecution. They are within the terms of the Convention and we will want to
offer them refuge as signatories to the 1951 Convention. Everybody would
accept that. Then, of course, you have people who perhaps are making
Convention claims but they are unfounded. They fall short of that. Then, of
course, you have people who cynically disregard the system of seeking asylum.
They are coming for economic migrancy. Of course, one understands they might
be fleeing very difficult situations; situations where economies are failing;
but you do not deal with the economic ills of the world by opening your
borders, by not having border control. What you have are proper international
development policies. Of course, it is also right to say that what the 1951
Convention did not recognise was an age of mass travel; cheap
telecommunications; and also, it is right to say, this organised facilitation.
Chairman
22. Mrs Roche, Amnesty International have said to us that the High
Level Working Groups on Asylum and Immigration have had more to do with
restricting migration into the European Union and too little to do with the
human rights violations. How do you reply to that?
(Mrs Roche) I do not accept that, Chairman. The High Level Groups
have provided a great body of work, which has been warmly welcomed by all
Member States. I cannot think of a Member State which has not been pleased
with the direction the work is going in. This ties very much with the reply
that I was giving to Mr Winnick as far as this is concerned. What the groups
have been about is doing a number of things. First of all, looking at why
migration occurs and what Action Plans you can have in those economies to help
them with their economy; but also to understand that you can have very
vulnerable people in those countries. It comes back to Mr Winnick's other
question about sums being paid; about their paying fantastic sums of money;
perhaps selling everything they have for that opportunity to come to the
United Kingdom or to other Member States. It is a real exploitation issue
that we need to tackle.
Mr Linton
23. Could I seek a little further information about one thing you
mentioned in passing. You said that some people come in as one nationality;
they destroy their passports and then present themselves from other country.
Does that mean that people present themselves as Afghans or Somalis or
Kosovars, countries which are likely to qualify, and does that mean that you
have to have a team of interpreters to try to establish the nationality?
(Mrs Roche) That is absolutely right. That is exactly what does
happen. People will present themselves from that other country, where there
is quite clearly a very difficult situation going on. My officials in the
Birmingham area have conducted a tremendous exercise where this has been
concerned and something like 12 prosecutions have actually taken place for
offences under the legislation. Of course, again what those claimants do is
that they completely undermine the system that we want to support. You are
right, Mr Linton. That is why we will have specialist interpreters who will
be able to determine this. Then, at the end of the day, what we also have to
do, as a result of those destroyed documents, is to re-document people; so
that the right country can accept their own nationals back, which is why I am
going to being intensifying resources into this area.
24. Is this being done with employers? People smuggled in so that
they can work for a particular employer?
(Mrs Roche) There is another area as well. This is not necessarily
always where people claim asylum, but where people might come in as visitors
and they are working illegally. There are, unfortunately, a number of very
unscrupulous agencies around. In the agricultural industry, some very
unscrupulous gangmasters around. What tends to happen in this is that there
is a lot of joint work which goes on with the police, with the Immigration
Service, and also with the Benefits Agency, to combat this. I would say that
probably a week does not go by when we will have a number of operations, a
number of raids in progress to deal with that.
25. Do you have any powers to fingerprint people who come in as one
nationality and you suspect they may be another?
(Mrs Roche) We do fingerprint people who claim asylum. Where EURODAC
will help to give this instantaneous information to us, is if people have made
more one claim. As I say again, people who do this and the organised gangs
who facilitate this, really what they do is to undermine the whole system.
And, of course, where I feel so strongly about this is that the people who get
forgotten in this whole process are those genuinely fleeing persecution, who
genuinely have a claim on our protection, whom we all want to do something
about. They are really undermined by this very cynical trade.
Mr Howarth
26. Minister, you will know that this is one of the most important
issues of concern to the British people at the present time. You made mention
of the UN Convention on Refugees. You referred to the changed circumstances.
Indeed, in your own Department's note to us you say: "We have been concerned
for some time that the Convention is not able to deal effectively with
contemporary circumstances, including large-scale movements of asylum
seekers." Can I put it to you that this Convention is wholly out-of-date.
The Chairman of this Committee has called for a review of it. What action are
you taking to review the 1951 Convention?
(Mrs Roche) As I said earlier, we certainly accept that the Convention
did not recognise the fact of cheap travel. Let me give you a graphic
example. If a couple of airlines who fly to particular countries in Eastern
Europe reduce their prices one week, I can tell you that the following day I
will get increased numbers of people coming to seek asylum. I do not believe
the 1951 Convention envisaged that when it was drafted. Mass travel is
something. Easy telecommunications. The fact that people can communicate in
such a way. Believe me, those facilitating some of these rackets look to see
what we are doing and they communicate it.
27. There is common ground here on what the problem is. What are we
doing about it?
(Mrs Roche) Having said that, it would clearly be a major undertaking
to try to renegotiate this. This is not just a matter for the European Union,
it is for very, very many Member States who are signed up to the UN
Convention, so we have to be realistic about what we can do. However, having
said that, I think there are questions that we do need to raise. Certainly
I have been raising these questions with my opposite numbers in Canada and
Australia, particularly in the light of examples such as the Stansted
hijacking incident. That is why I have raised them. We are raising these
issues with like minded states. I have raised it in the margins of the JHA
meetings. What I have also done is that I have raised it with the Canadians
and the Australians, and certainly my officials are continuing to do so as
well. What we have to look at is what practical steps we can take now. Some
of the practical steps that we can take are looking at these common standards
of reception. Looking at definitions and applications about how we define
refugees, but also not standing still and looking effectively and practically
at how we can disrupt some of these supply routes, because that is the key
thing we need to do.
28. I am grateful for your commitment and I do not doubt it but the
fact is that a coach and horses have been driven through our legislation and
is of grave concern to people of this country. There are reports of 3,000
Kosovars who came to this country seeking asylum in Britain, whilst our troops
are out there, guaranteeing their safety in Kosovo. Surely that is a complete
nonsense. If you look at the figures for February, the most recently
available, we are talking about asylum applications not only from former
Yugoslavia but 505 from Sri Lanka and 460 from Afghanistan. Surely the time
has come, given the ease with which people can jump on a plane and come to the
United Kingdom, where we have one of the fairest systems of justice in the
world, to say, "We cannot resolve all your problems, even when you are the
victim of injustice", because if the only consequence of injustice is another
country and for those people to come here, surely the argument is the same as
your argument on economic migrants, where you say that we cannot resolve
people's economic problems in other countries simply by having all the victims
of economic depression come to this country. Surely the same must now apply
to those who are facing even more danger than simply economic difficulties,
because this country simply cannot cope any more. That is what our
constituents are telling us.
(Mrs Roche) Let me tell you very clearly and plainly what we need to
do. I do not think a coach and horses have been driven through it. That is
why the government has taken perhaps the most comprehensive look at the asylum
process that has ever been taken in its history. Firstly, we need to make
sure that we do not have people coming here to make unfounded claims. That
is why the civil penalty is so important. The government very much wants some
all party support on the civil penalty. I am not here obviously to make any
political points, but it would be very nice to have some support from the
Opposition and from other parties on the civil penalties, because the civil
penalties can be a major tool in doing this. What they do is they help to
stop the problem at source and that is why it is so important.
Mr Howarth: Surely the best way of solving the problem at source is
to send the clearest message to people in Afghanistan or Sri Lanka: "We do not
like your government but you have to resolve the problem for yourselves. We
cannot be expected to resolve your problems throughout every other country in
the world by specifically bringing those who are the victims of oppression by
their incompetent and indeed oppressive governments to the United Kingdom."
Surely that would be the strongest message, to say, "Do not come to the United
Kingdom. Sort out your problems."
Mr Linton: On that basis, we would have sent back the German Jews.
Mr Howarth
29. The point is we have 200,000 estimated asylum seekers on benefits
in this country. 126,000 whose applications have been refused have gone to
ground. We have to do something about it.
(Mrs Roche) Here is where we part company. We clearly have
obligations and they are not just obligations under the Convention, but they
are under the European Convention of Human Rights. Also, there are
obligations under UN Conventions against torture, against inhuman treatment,
to help those who genuinely require our protection. Mr Linton gives a very
graphic example of all our obligations which are very much post the Second
World War and the Holocaust. I take those obligations very seriously indeed.
I am absolutely determined that as a country we will meet those obligations.
What I will not have is that system undermined by people who cynically exploit
it and by criminals who obtain large amounts of money by doing it. What is
it that we need to do? We need to be very practical. My point about the
civil penalty is a real one. That is a very practical illustration which can
help to stop it because if you know that the government is taking all measures
and it is actually going to cost that focuses minds tremendously. What else
is it that makes people think they will perhaps chance it? It is having a
very long, drawn out system, which is why we are now making record numbers of
decisions. It is why we have opened Okington in which we will process, we
hope, about 13,000 cases a year. We will give people an initial decision in
about seven days. What we have to do, and I will be quite open about it, Mr
Howarth, is to depress the market -- this is about supply and demand. I have
not forgotten my Treasury training -- for those people who think that they
will take cynically the money from very vulnerable people and bring them here.
If it very quickly gets back that it is not worth you buying your package in
this way because you are going to be removed very quickly, that depresses the
market and that is what I am going to do. That is why the civil penalty is
important. That is why rapid decision making is important. That is why we
have employed hundreds more decision makers. Also, we are now removing more
people than we have removed before, but not enough. Of course this is
difficult. We are all constituency Members of Parliament. We all see these
cases. Behind all these statistics are very real men, women and children.
At the end of the process, we need to remove people very quickly indeed and
that is why, as well as having more resources into redocumenting people, I am
going to put much more resources into removing people.
30. Thank you. We are going to come on to enforcement specifically
in a moment, but finally on the UN Geneva Convention of 1951 you mentioned
that you discussed it at the margins of the JHA meetings in Europe. Surely
this is an issue which should not be at the margins; it should be a key and
crucial point on the main agenda. As a result of those marginal discussions
that you have had with our continental partners, have you found any sympathy
from them with your concerns about the UN Convention?
(Mrs Roche) Forgive me for using the word "margins". I have obviously
gone over to the other side. I am using an officialese phrase already. You
see how soon it has happened to me in government. No. Of course, it is very
much something that we put forward at every possible opportunity. For
example, I did a meeting recently at the European Parliament of their
Committee on Justice and Home Affairs. I raised it there and I raise it at
every possible opportunity. I think there is an understanding by our European
partners. They would share the analysis but they would also say to me, having
shared the analysis, this is such a difficult subject. It is not just
renegotiating in the European Union; it is worldwide. It will take a
tremendous amount of time. Therefore, let us look at the practical measures
we can do now. Let us look at EURODAC; let us look at common standards of
receptions; let us look at definitional questions; let us look at the better
operation of the Dublin Convention; let us look to see what we can do
practically to disrupt supply routes.
Mr Winnick
31. Minister, have you been at all surprised in the last few weeks
by the amount of sheer hysteria over asylum matters?
(Mrs Roche) I think the concern reflects the real problem that people
see. I think the British public are incredibly generous. We have this
history of being generous in responding to crises. The way in which the
public responded to the crisis in Mozambique was absolutely overwhelming.
People's generosity when there was a humanitarian evacuation programme as far
as Kosovo was concerned; the fact of communities having really turned out to
support these things. What the public do not want to see is their generosity
being exploited. They do not want to be in a situation where they are seeing
people making unfounded claims. The important thing for the government to do
is to get this balance right. I think there is a responsibility on all of us.
I will do an interview where, in the space of the same interview, I can be
accused of being too tough and too liberal. You are always presented with
different cases. Either everybody is a victim of torture or else everybody
is making claims that are completely unfounded. With all of this, the truth
is somewhere in the middle. What we need to do is to make sure that our
language is right and that we get over the message. I am as robust as I
possibly can be in the message, which is that we are always going to honour
our international obligations to those genuinely fleeing persecution but we
will be robust with those people who exploit the system.
32. Recognising that there are genuine and bogus asylum seekers --
there is no doubt about that -- do you find it somewhat more difficult,
dealing with the whole issue with your colleagues in the Home Office, when
there are tabloid headlines about one particular case which obviously will
cause a good deal of concern and which dwell on those who seem to be bogus and
therefore it undermines the whole question of trying to provide help for those
who are genuinely and undoubtedly fleeing from terror and persecution?
(Mrs Roche) In part, it reflects the public debate. People do need
to be reassured that there are proper systems in place. People want to know
that we are dealing with it and they also want to know that we have efficient
systems. We are just now recovering from systems put in place by the previous
administration which were not working. We lost something like 1,200 members
of staff who were encouraged by the last administration to go for voluntary
redundancy. We lost a lot of experienced case workers which I am now getting
back. What we now need to do is to make sure that we restore confidence in
the system. The way in which we do that is to make a record number of
decisions. I am not complacent about it. We have to do more. We recognise
the public concern to get this right but essentially the British public is
incredibly fair and what it wants is to do right by people who genuinely need
our help and assistance but to deter those who want to exploit it and to
return those people as quickly as possible. I am in no doubt that this is a
matter of public concern and that is why it is important that all the
measures, particularly the important measures that we are unrolling this week,
are communicated as effectively as we possibly can.
33. Do you think it would be helpful, to say the least, if not only
ministers but all parliamentarians and indeed the media, including the
tabloids, tried to avoid hysteria and xenophobia and therefore there would be
a much more balanced picture and hopefully a much more balanced debate about
the whole British policy on asylum seekers and why such a policy has been
pursued, I take it, for centuries. Is that not the position?
(Mrs Roche) I think it is absolutely right that we have a balanced
debate and that we look at our language.
34. It does go back centuries. Am I right?
(Mrs Roche) Absolutely. I have a personal interest in this.
35. But before that time ----?
(Mrs Roche) It is the contribution that refugees have made to this
country, not just over the decades but over the centuries. If you look at our
history, there will be many of us around this table who bear living witness
to that, myself included. Recently, there was one of the interviews when I
was accused of being too tough. I said, "It is very funny you should say that
because I published a document a few months ago which was about refugee
integration, a document which is when we actually recognise somebody as being
a refugee under the Convention, how we integrate that person without that
person of course losing their cultural identity, but in terms of employment,
in terms of English as a second language, if that was necessary." Of course,
very many of the people who we give genuine status as refugees are highly
trained, highly professional people who can make a very real contribution.
I put it to them, when they were accusing me of being too tough, was that
covered? No, of course it was not. Of course we need to have a proper debate
but we have to get the terms of it right. The picture is a complex one but
the difficulty at the moment is that people see it in set terms and we have
to talk about the reality. What is the reality? The reality is that we have
large numbers of completely unfounded claims and those claims completely
undermine the system. We will deal with them as swiftly as we can and we will
return people; but for those people who make genuine claims we will want to
honour our international obligations and to use the skills and expertise that
they offer.
36. Mr Howarth's ancestors were no doubt here in Hastings in 1066.
It would be terrible if it came out that his ancestors came much later and
were seeking asylum in one form or another, but you have said in the House and
today again about the March figures for asylum seekers which exceed the number
of applications and that is encouraging. The Home Office is getting on top
of it all. The obvious, predictable question is why not before, be it in
previous years or in the last two years? Why has the situation been such that
it has given fuel and ammunition to all those who clearly are aiming to
exploit the situation for various political purposes?
(Mrs Roche) One of the key mistakes that was made by the previous
administration was putting faith in a computer system that they thought could
do everything. It could decide everything; it would provide a paperless
system; it could probably provide the Home Office tea as well, and also to
such an extent that they then encouraged very experienced people to leave on
the basis that they would not be needed any more. The Home Office, over that
period, lost a lot of very experienced people that we are now recovering.
This has been an area of work in the Home Office that has not been given the
highest priority but needs to be. What more important work can there be than
looking at our borders but looking at asylum policy? What we have also needed
to do is to employ many more people.
37. Are you doing that now?
(Mrs Roche) That is right. They have come on stream now. We have
taken on very many more people, not only in Croydon but in Liverpool as well.
38. Can you give the number of extra people?
(Mrs Roche) Certainly a couple of extra hundred more people in
Croydon. I can give the precise figures to the Committee.
39. On a permanent basis?
(Mrs Roche) Yes. By the end of the process we will a seven or eight
fold increase in the number of people. The reason why the decisions had not
been made before was not because officials were poring over these decisions
but simply because they were gathering dust on a shelf somewhere. We are now
considering those decisions and that is very important. I have been to Dover,
Waterloo and Heathrow and I have listened to a family make an asylum claim.
Usually it is the husband making the claim with the wife and children outside
usually, being young children, not sure what is happening to them. I will
hear the husband making the claim and I will listen to the immigration officer
take the applicant through the claim. I know that claim is completely
unfounded. It is not persecution within the meaning of the 1951 Convention.
The right thing to do in those cases is to make the decision as quickly as
possible and then to return somebody, particularly where it is these family
cases, because nothing is more harmful to the wife and children for this to
drag on for ages while it is being determined. As constituency Members of
Parliament, we will get those families perhaps living in our constituencies.
We are all human beings and as constituency Members of Parliament I come from
a constituency where I have a large number of these cases. You will be
relieved to know, Mr Winnick, when I write about these cases I do not write
to myself; I write to another Home Office minister. You get a lot of human
misery down the line. It is much more important that I move this to the front
and deal with them as quickly as I can. We have looked at all our process so
it is an end to end process because partly some of the difficulty that we have
is we have not had efficient methods in place and we have got to make it
efficient. That is why you need to make it fair, firm and fast because if you
have a process that does not deliver it quickly the only people who win are
the criminals and facilitators who can sell this as a selling point: "If we
get you to the United Kingdom, it can take a long time." I am not prepared
to have that happen. That is why we are putting all these processes in place
so people do not think they go to the end of a very long queue.
Mr Fabricant
40. I want to move back to the area of these organised gangs which
you have already been talking about. David Winnick was asking you about the
nature of these gangs. You say they are determined gangs of organised
criminals. Where are these organisations? Are they within the European Union
or are they based in the countries from whence the refugees have come?
(Mrs Roche) It is a combination. Remember, this is opportunist.
There will be bits of it. Sometimes you will get the actual route. Some of
them perhaps do the route a bit of the way; some will do it all over; some
will be engaged in perhaps a very long court process which may not, at the end
of it, feature in an asylum claim. It might be just facilitating for illegal
working.
41. Earlier on you gave us the impression of organisation which, by
necessity, requires a head. It requires an apex, if you like. Where would
that apex be?
(Mrs Roche) They can come both from within the European Union and
outside. Can I bring Mr Warne in?
(Mr Warne) It is a very complex picture. There are gangs operating
here, facilitators en route, some groups based in particular countries,
organising the business from the outset, but there is a lot of fluidity.
These are not established companies who put their name plates outside the
door. They move from country to country and they mix in different groups
according to the commodity they are dealing with. In this case, it is
wretched human beings. It could be drugs; it could be fire arms; it could be
other commodities or smuggling tobacco. There is already very good
cooperation between immigration, police and other agencies, both here and in
the European Union, in addressing these issues. What I think we are trying
to do more of is to get back to the source of the problem. That requires a
lot of work, a lot of cooperative endeavour, and that is what we are trying
to achieve so that even if we cannot prosecute as we would like to we can
achieve the maximum disruption possible. That is the focus. It is not just
dealing with the problem when it impacts on us but working with European Union
colleagues to ensure that we understand what is happening through those
countries as well as here, and looking beyond that, especially to eastern
Europe, to see if we can assist countries there to deal with the problem and
to get to the root of it rather than just deal with it when it is already a
problem on our door step.
42. Do you believe that each European Union country is putting enough
effort into not just maintaining border controls but actually providing
criminal investigation into trying to arrest the people organising it?
(Mr Warne) I think more could be done but there is already a high level
of effort. Europol is helping to provide a European Union intelligence
picture of what is happening within the 15. That is much better than
operating on our own or bilaterally. What we need to do is to convert that
intelligence picture into more operational activity. This is one of the
reasons why the government proposed at Tampere that there should be a police
chiefs task force so that, having looked at the nature of criminality in the
European Union, police chiefs who can commit resources to it could get
together and set up joint investigative teams to pursue these matters.
43. You say more could be done. Are there any EU states you think
are not pulling their weight? Is there a soft underbelly in Europe today just
as there was in 1943?
(Mr Warne) Different countries have different problems at different
times. We were in Rome last week, talking about these issues because there
is a flood of traffic around the Adriatic and they have severe problems. We
want to work closely with them. It requires us to understand what they are
doing before we form any judgments and in that case we were impressed by the
effort being made and the way they have responded to the minister's request
for help in dealing with the movement of people by rail freight traffic, for
example. This requires cooperative endeavour rather than finger pointing.
We think we are getting quite a lot of support and help. There is always room
for more.
(Mrs Roche) When I raise it with other Member States, there is a lot
of willingness. The key thing is that we just push this up the agenda because
it has not been. Certainly discussion on this international trade is
something that an awareness of it has actually grown in recent times. I have
had meetings with the Italian minister because of course we have got this
dreadful trade, this rail freight trade, which is coming from Italy and
alighting in Wembley and in this city. The Italians have been taking some
action and we have got them to take some more, so it is actually making sure
we highlight it. Again, Mr Warne mentioned the operational police chiefs.
That is why I have said to the Commissioner that this is exactly the sort of
activity which is trans-border which they can look at and I think have a real
practical effect on.
44. You mentioned Wembley. Let us move back to our own borders and
move away from rail traffic to road traffic. Is it fair to pick on truck
drivers if they find, or more to the point our own border police find,
refugees on board their trucks?
(Mrs Roche) What is it that I am saying to the haulage industry? It
is not just the haulage industry that the civil penalty is on. What I am
saying is that first of all they have to have a secure system in place. Also,
it has to be secure on the day. I have been to Dover when clandestine
entrants have been found and I have looked at the canvas. I could get into
that canvas. Any of us around the table could get into it. It would just
require a removal of the canvas. Of course we know that some of these
facilitators are very sophisticated. They will cut the canvas and then glue
it together. That means people need to check rigorously. There are devices
on the market. There are CO2 devices available. They are about œ700 or œ800.
It is a bit of a better investment than having a œ2,000 penalty. I think
there is a lot of carelessness that goes on and I think it could be
eradicated. I think there is a responsibility on the industry and everybody
to make sure that people take proper security measures.
Chairman
45. It also applies to coach operators?
(Mrs Roche) Yes.
46. Ferries?
(Mrs Roche) Yes. That is already there under carriers' liability as
well.
Mr Fabricant
47. We heard earlier on from Mr Howarth that trucks can be left in
Calais and I think he said under the eyes of the French police people are
getting into these trucks. Either we have to strengthen controls in Calais
and other border ports outside the United Kingdom or really you are saying
there has to be a huge investment by truckers, either by providing their own
guards or by rebuilding trucks into safes to prevent people from climbing in.
I am not sure quite what this CO2 device is; I hope it is not something to gas
people, but it does seem to me that the poor old trucker, who has had a raw
deal with the cost of diesel and everything else, is now being asked to spend
even more money.
(Mrs Roche) I do not accept that. Let me set your mind at rest about
the CO2 device. It is a device that has been used for some time. It is like
a probe. You put it into the canvas and it will show whether there is a very
high level of CO2 which would indicate that there are numbers of people. Let
me give you some graphic examples. We have had cases of trucks being open and
large numbers of people come out. The haulier will say, "I didn't know they
were in the back of that lorry, guv". Are you asking me to believe that that
is always the case? I am only talking about a minority here. Of course,
there are determined people who are absolutely determined to get through and
they will get through at all costs. That is why people have to be vigilant.
I have been talking to the industry for months; my officials have been talking
to the industry for months about some of the measures that they could put on.
We have had these measures on the airlines for some time. Indeed, it was the
previous administration that brought in carriers' liability. Suddenly why we
should let one part of this off, I do not know. There is a lot of scope to
improve this. What is quite interesting is what happened yesterday when this
rolled out. People are looking at this and at the measures. I believe that
the vast majority of the haulage industry are very responsible people. They
will want to comply with what the government wants to do. They know that
there is a difficulty here. They know that we stand ready to assist them
because we have done this. We have developed a code of practice with the
industry. We have been warning them for some time that this was going to
happen. I am sure they will want to cooperate.
48. Have you made an assessment as to the cost per truck if they are
going to comply? At what level? How do you determine whether a truck driver
has been negligent or even compliant in allowing people to come in or took all
natural and reasonable precautions but still brought people in?
(Mrs Roche) My immigration officers will look at it and make an
assessment. If it is a criminal matter of facilitation, it will be for the
police. It will interest the Committee to know that what we have done on the
legislation which I have just brought in is we have put up the penalty for
facilitation to ten years. As far as the civil penalty, the immigration
service is very experienced at searching trucks. We have published a code of
practice which did not come from nowhere. We consulted widely with the
industry on that and they have seen the code of practice. They would have to
show to us that they had a secure system and they have checked it on the day.
There are measures that the industry could take. For example, one of the
things the industry has been talking about is to have something that is
commercially led, some sort of checking secure facility perhaps just outside
the port of Calais which the vehicles can come to.
49. Have you made that cost assessment?
(Mrs Roche) We are required to do it but in most cases it is not
making this like a ----
50. I am actually asking you how much. If you do not have the
figures now, that is fine.
(Mrs Roche) If I have a figure I will give it to you but it is not so
much a case of having to make this thing like a fortress. It is to make sure
that they have secure measures in place and that they have checked it on the
day.
51. Is it not unreasonable for you to ask truckers to do something
when you yourself do not know the cost to the truck drivers, to the trucking
operators?
(Mrs Roche) I can tell you what the cost is to the truck drivers. It
is œ2,000 per clandestine entrant if they do not get it right.
52. No; you misunderstand what I am asking you: not the penalties but
the cost of setting up secure systems.
(Mrs Roche) We will have done presumably a regulatory impact
assessment.
53. Presumably?
(Mrs Roche) It is quite difficult to say to you that every lorry will
be different, so it is very difficult to say what you need to do for each
lorry. It is in the interest of the haulage industry itself to take a proper
message because if they are carrying perishable goods and other things it may
well be that their whole load is going to be damaged. If you look, for
example, on the rail freight that is coming through, the industry loses whole
pallets from this. This is also something that is not just for my benefit or
for the benefit of the British taxpayer; it is also for the benefit of the
actual industry. I will look to check to see what we did on the regulatory
impact assessment.
54. Will you write to me?
(Mrs Roche) Of course I will. I will write to the Committee.
Chairman
55. Will you send us a copy of the leaflet you were handing out?
(Mrs Roche) I certainly will, yes.
Bob Russell
56. If this body heat seeking apparatus is so efficient ----
(Mrs Roche) CO2.
57. Whatever it is, would you not agree it would be far simpler if
this was provided by the British government at all ports of entry? Would that
not have dealt with this problem a long time ago, more efficiently than what
some would think are draconian measures now?
(Mrs Roche) At various times all sorts of different devices come on
to the market. I would not want to say that one device is better than
another, but there are devices that can be used. I know Mr Corbett has an
interest in these matters. We constantly are looking at new devices. I think
the responsibility is on those. Remember, at the end of the day, you have a
situation, and in very many cases it is unwitting, of people bring people
clandestinely into the country. I do not think the industry can abrogate
responsibility because at the end of the day the biggest cost of unfounded
claims is going to be paid by the British taxpayer that Mr Howarth has already
mentioned.
58. Responsibility is one thing but surely effectiveness is what the
government is after. Surely we should have effective measures implemented by
the government and not putting the blame on the truck drivers?
(Mrs Roche) We do not put blame. What we ask them to do is to make
sure that they have proper secure systems in place. Yesterday's results were
extremely encouraging. What made yesterday different? The civil penalty,
clearly.
Mr Cawsey
59. I want to ask a couple of questions about enforcement but just
before I do I want to ask something about the size of the problem in this
country. If somebody asked you while I was out of the room, I apologise. If
I am in a good mood in the morning and I want to be brought back to earth, I
usually read The Daily Mail and they would say that we have this dreadful
problem in Britain. It is a soft touch and that nice Barbara Roche lets
everybody in. Sometimes I read The Guardian, which makes me even more
depressed, and they will tell me that Britain is awful and that we do not do
as much as other European countries and that awful Barbara Roche will not let
anybody into the country. Where exactly are we in terms of a lot of asylum
seekers around Europe? What is Britain doing compared to other countries?
In other words, what is the size of the problem comparatively?
(Mrs Roche) I speak as a Member of Parliament and in my constituency
there is the second highest readership of The Guardian in the United Kingdom.
As Michael Caine would say, not a lot of people know that. All Member States
are facing difficulties. If you look, for example, at the case of Belgium,
they are facing greater percentage increases than we are. I was over last
week talking to the Belgian authorities about it but everybody is seeing these
pressures. What we need to have are situations in place where we actually
look to see what action we can take together, so proper measures in place to
exchange information; proper measures in place to prevent asylum shopping are
very important and also to have a strategic look at this. That is why the
working group and the action plans are very important, to look at
developmental issues and also the conversation about smuggling. The solution
to this problem is to do a number of things. First of all, it is to deter
unfounded claims which is to prevent those gangs and prevent people coming in
in the first place and make sure that everybody takes their responsibilities.
We have been putting that responsibility on the airlines for years. Why
should the haulage industry not have those responsibilities? Also, to speed
up the system, but the key thing now is to remove people who have made
unfounded claims.
60. I do not disagree with any of that except that I would still be
quite interested to know how Britain's level of asylum seekers compared to
other countries.
(Mrs Roche) Per head of the population, we are about sixth in the
European Union league but we can see great pressures, for example, in other
countries. If we look at the European Union, if we look at the Republic of
Ireland, they see very increasing figures. In one month -- I think it was
September or October -- they had 1,000 people. If one looks at the population
of Ireland, two million, 1,000 asylum seekers in one month is a tremendous
percentage increase. They are having exactly the same debate that we are
having. I had a meeting with my Irish counterpart about this and they are
facing some of the same difficulties from organised smuggling that we are.
61. Would your officials be able to supply us with figures?
(Mrs Roche) We can give you all of the European Union figures, of
course.
62. Moving on to enforcement, in answer to a question from Mr Howarth
on removal, I think you said that we were now removing more than ever which
could be slightly more than ever before or a lot more. What are the latest
figures for the removal from the United Kingdom of people whose applications
have been rejected?
(Mrs Roche) Off the top of my head, for last year, it is approximately
about 7,500 or just a bit more than that. Those are removals at the end of
a deportation action. If you talk about people we remove from the whole
process, that we turn away from ports -- I am not just talking about those
seeking asylum but those that we deny entry to as visitors -- we are probably
over the year thinking of something a bit more like 35,000. Clearly, we need
to put much more effort into this as far as removal is concerned. That will
require a number of things that we have to do. First of all, apologies for
repeating this again but it is part of a process. If you want to remove
people at the end of the process, you have to make the decisions much earlier.
There are some cases that you can turn round in a very short period of time.
You have to do that. Okington will help us to do that. If there are
unfounded cases, we can make the initial decision in about seven days. If we
certify them as being unfounded, we can have the appeal process in about three
weeks. If that fails at the end of it, we can remove people. We will have
to put much more resource into detention space because the way in which we
remove people is by detaining them, usually at the end of the process. We
will also have to have many more reporting centres like, for example, Beckett
House in London. We will need to up our game on this. This is a difficult
area. It comes to the point I was making in answer to Mr Linton earlier on.
It is much better for all concerned that we get the removal process much
nearer the front end of what we are doing because not only is that much more
the best way to proceed for the sake of people themselves in this sort of
process but it sends a very clear message back to the criminals and the
smugglers that it is depressing their market because it is just not worth
people paying those exorbitant amounts of money for very little return.
63. In a recent parliamentary question, you were asked about how many
failed asylum seekers are unlawfully at large in the United Kingdom, to which
the answer was that it was just unknown. I can understand that, especially
give the background you have just given us, but if there is going to be any
confidence in the system there would have to be, would there not, some sort
of more accurate way of assessing what has happened to people after they have
failed to gain asylum? You have just said you are going to up the game and
you talked about some of the new reporter mechanisms and the like that you
want to put in place to ensure that there is more knowledge on where these
people are, but the new law started yesterday. When do you expect to have
these regimes in place as well so that we will not get answers like that in
the future?
(Mrs Roche) The difficulty with that is that we can give a snapshot
at any one time. This will go back a decade. The difficulty that we are
always going to have is that some people may well have abandoned the claim and
left the country. They are not necessarily at large. We do not check people
routinely. As you will know when you leave the country, it is not checked in
that sort of way if somebody is leaving with all the appropriate documents.
We do need generally speaking to make our recording mechanisms much more
thorough. There are a number of things that are going on. There is the
implementation of the legislation, which did not just start yesterday. It has
started already; it is just that some of the main features came in today. For
example, the increased penalty for criminal facilitation has been in for a
little time now. That is one of the things I wanted to get in as quickly as
we possibly could. Some of this is administrative such as, in answer to Mr
Corbett's question, the taking on of extra staff, making our procedures much
more efficient, getting proper managerial procedures in, managing the process,
putting more resources there. We have already had more money than we ever had
before for the immigration and nationality department, so it is making sure
we have the new reporting centre. The answer to you is as quickly as I
possibly can, because generally the most important thing is that people have
a clear view and have confidence in the system. That means I will need much
more detention space as we remove people and we will try and bring that on as
quickly as we possibly can and many more reporting centres as well. That will
be very crucial to what we do.
64. I accept you cannot give an exact date but are we talking short
term or medium term? In other words, are we talking about perhaps over the
next year or over the next five years?
(Mrs Roche) As quickly as we possibly can. Some of these things will
come in over the next intermediate period. It is very difficult to give you
dates but I want these things as quickly as I possibly can. They are
absolutely essential to the integrity of the system.
Mr Howarth
65. Both you and Mr Cawsey have used the word "confidence". Quite
clearly, there can be no public confidence so long as it is estimated that
there are no firm statistics on the numbers of people who have been rejected
for asylum in this country after their application has been made and yet have
gone to ground. One report I heard suggested 126,000 people. That is getting
on for virtually two parliamentary constituencies. This is a very big
problem. In the answer you gave to David Lidington on 23 March, you gave
various reasons why the information could not be provided. You made the point
about people who were rejected at the port of entry and they are not included
in the statistics. How many have left voluntarily was also not known. We
must know how many we forcibly ejected. You said 7,500.
(Mrs Roche) In 1999, yes.
66. That is a very small proportion. That is less than ten per cent
of the overall numbers of asylum seekers last year. Can I suggest that you
might press your boss, the Home Secretary, through a cross-party agreement on
this Committee, that it is essential that given the huge escalation there has
been in this problem in the last few years, not just under this government but
it has certainly gone up dramatically in the last two or three years, to
institute a system whereby the British people can know exactly how many people
have been refused asylum and what has happened to them once they have been
refused asylum?
(Mrs Roche) We know the figures for refusals on asylum because we
publish all those.
67. And removed?
(Mrs Roche) Of course. There is a difference. Some of the confusion
that is concerned is that there are different procedures which will change
under the Act. In some cases, people can be administratively removed and
there are the other figures that we give for people who came here with
permission initially although then, at the end of the process, we deport them,
which is quite a different procedure. The numbers of people we have removed
are higher than they have ever been, higher than they were under the previous
administration, but you are right in that if people at the end of the day are
found to have made unfounded cases they need to be removed. In order do that,
first of all, we have to make the decisions. That is why we are taking on the
extra people to make the decisions, because we have to make them. We have to
recover from what we inherited with the immigration and nationality department
with a system that was not working, with a great deal of expertise which had
just gone. We were left with a situation were 1,200 people were encouraged
to go.
68. You are in charge now, Minister. We are looking to the future.
Come on.
(Mrs Roche) It is pretty important because we lost a tremendous amount
of expertise. This is very skilled work. We have now brought that back which
is why we have made the record number of decisions. No government has ever
made that number of decisions before in a month. I am not complacent. We
need to do much more, but you are right that we need to remove many more
people. Believe me, although support is always very welcome, particularly
cross-party support, I do not need to convince the Home Secretary of this.
He is fully on side in my efforts to do this. What we need to do is to have
more enforcement teams. Coming back to the point that Mr Linton raised
earlier, we will have to redouble our efforts about documentation. We will
have to have much more detention space and we will have to have many more
reporting centres. That is why we are recruiting and that is why we are doing
this. As you say quite rightly, Mr Howarth, it comes down to a question of
confidence.
Mr Winnick
69. Mr Howarth has talked about cross-party agreement. Are you
trying to reach cross-party agreement, because I have seen very little sign
of it in the chamber, where every effort has been made to exploit the
situation and, to use the words I have used before, hysteria and xenophobia.
Can we take it from what Mr Howarth has said that you will now seek cross-
party agreement from your counterparts in the Opposition?
(Mrs Roche) I am always an optimist. I would love to see some cross-
party agreement. At the end of the day, these are serious matters. These are
people's lives and I do take it seriously, which is why I try to be as
consistent as I possibly can, as careful with my language as I possibly can,
because this is a difficult area. I understand that people feel very
exercised about this area, but this is why there is a responsibility on all
of us, as Members of Parliament, to say that what we want to do is to give
protection to those genuinely in need of our protection but to deter unfounded
cases. I think that is something we all subscribe to. It would be great if
there was some agreement on it.
70. Has the Shadow Home Office Minister suggested having a discussion
at the Home Office to look at the situation? Have you received any requests
from her?
(Mrs Roche) No. I have written to all Kent Members of Parliament
suggesting that what would be nice would be cross-party support for our civil
penalties.
71. Would you consider writing and asking her if she would like to
come to the Home Office and see what actually is being done?
(Mrs Roche) I would certainly be very willing to do that.
Chairman
72. Can we move on to United Kingdom participation in Schengen? In
March of last year, the United Kingdom asked to take part in the law
enforcement, criminal and judicial aspects of the Treaty which otherwise we
have an opt out on. Can you say when it is likely that there will be a
decision on that?
(Mrs Roche) We are in very active discussions at the moment. We are
very near final agreement. Basically, the approach that we have had has been
accepted by the Schengen states but the final agreement is subject to
resolution of the way in which it should apply to Gibraltar. Very intensive
discussions have gone on with the Spanish government. They have been very
productive and we hope shortly that they will come to a resolution.
73. Can I understand about Gibraltar, please? It is an extremely
important aspect of this. Is it the government's view that we will not take
part in these aspects of the Schengen acquis unless and until the matter of
Gibraltar has been resolved, or is it possible to walk around that, in a
sense, and take part while trying to solve that?
(Mrs Roche) I am not talking about the Gibraltar general discussion,
which ----
74. It also comes up in the context of the European Parliament.
(Mrs Roche) Of course it does. We just need an agreement, which we
are very near to achieving, with the Spanish government about the territorial
aspect of Schengen as it applies to Gibraltar. There have been very intensive
discussions and we think we are very near a resolution.
75. They are not seeking to veto us taking part in those bits of the
acquis which we have asked to, are they?
(Mrs Roche) Clearly it is dependent on -- to answer your question
about us resolving this particular aspect, it is basically about competent
authorities, but we think we can do this. We think we are very near.
76. How soon after that do you envisage that the United Kingdom law
enforcement, like NCIS and so on, will gain access to the Schengen Information
System?
(Mrs Roche) I will bring my colleagues in, particularly Mrs Pallett,
who I think I can say is probably a world expert now in this particular field.
It will take some time. There will clearly need to be some legislative
changes but we are probably talking about 2002.
77. Meanwhile, the bilateral discussions and arrangements which you
have been telling us about can go ahead alongside this, can they not?
(Mrs Roche) The bilateral aspects of ----?
78. Of the immigration and asylum stuff, for example.
(Mrs Roche) Yes. As far as Schengen is concerned, we are being
selective about what we want to join, because we are not joining those aspects
of it which affect our border control, because it is very important that we
keep control of that. We are very nearly at a resolution to that. We are of
the very strong view that, as far as the criminal justice agenda is concerned,
as well as the application of the Schengen Information System, this can bring
us very real benefits and advantages in the fight against crime.
(Mrs Pallett) Once we have a council decision, an agreed decision, on
our participation in Schengen, there will be an implementation period for the
United Kingdom. What we shall need to do is to get in place both certain
technical arrangements for cooperation and we will also need legislation in
certain areas of judicial cooperation for matters such as mutual legal
assistance and extradition. We will need certain legislative arrangements for
data protection. Once all that legislation is in place and once we have been
able to implement it, there will be an evaluation process by the existing
Schengen members. After that, we will then be allowed to participate
operationally.
79. It sounds like a long and winding road.
(Mrs Pallett) It would be, I would judge, about a couple of years and
certainly there are technical issues surrounding the Schengen Information
System, actually getting the IT equipment working and so on. We are aiming
at about 2002.
80. Has any estimate been made of the cost of signing up to the SIS
database?
(Mrs Pallett) It has not yet been finalised because much of the cost
will depend on how far it can be integrated into existing police computer
arrangements and specifically what methodology is used for transmitting the
data to the UK.
81. Can you say something, please, about the Government's view
towards both hot pursuit and law enforcement officers of another country
carrying weapons, with a view to using them if needs be, into the United
Kingdom?
(Mrs Pallett) Initially we put hot pursuit as an area of co-operation
in which we were interested in participating, simply because ---
82. It will be a little cooler because of the water.
(Mrs Pallett) --- we were seeking to participate in whole areas of co-
operation and that was an integral part of the police chapter, if you like.
After a discussion with Schengen colleagues we all came to the conclusion that
it was not sensible or practicable because, as I have said before in working
groups, hot pursuit becomes rather tepid if you have to get across the
Channel.
83. Yes.
(Mrs Pallett) So that is now deleted from our participation.
(Mrs Roche) I think it is fair to say, Mr Corbett, that a matter of
hot pursuit is very much for land borders. I think it was very quickly
appreciated, as Mrs Pallett said, by our Member States that this was not
appropriate to us.
84. What would happen in the case of, say, a hot pursuit involving
a helicopter over the English Channel?
(Mrs Roche) Again, I think we have decided ---
85. That could become very hot, could it not?
(Mrs Roche) Yes, that is why we have decided we should not have the
application basically.
86. Okay. Just to clear this up, Mrs Roche, you will be aware that
there was a headline in The Independent the other day saying Blair u-turn on
Schengen again, you know we were going to sign up for the whole lot. There
is no truth in that or is there?
(Mrs Roche) I can only repeat, Mr Corbett, I did a press conference
because on that day I think I was at the Council and I used a technical term
to describe The Independent article which I think was "utter tosh". I cannot
remember whether I said "utter" or "absolute" tosh but certainly the word
"tosh", if I can confirm with Mrs Pallett, was the word used.
(Mrs Pallett) It was.
Chairman: The Home Secretary did deny it, to be fair, in a letter to
The Independent the other day. Right. Now I have completely lost my way.
EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, Mr Howarth?
Mr Howarth: There will be no tosh now. Chairman, I did not think you
were like the Government at all, you have not lost your way. Before we leave
the question of asylum and so on, can I just say to the Minister that I do
appreciate very much her careful choice of words and her recognition that this
is a very sensitive issue. Can I put it to her that it is perfectly
legitimate, indeed it is the duty of Members of Parliament, to speak up also
for the culture and traditions of those perhaps native born Britons who
themselves do feel under threat. To say that is not in any way to be improper
or otherwise.
Mr Winnick: You are just indulging in the worst form of xenophobia,
Mr Howarth.
Mr Howarth
87. I hope the Minister will recognise that. On the question of the
proposed EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, Minister, can you tell us what on
earth this is all about? Why do we need another Charter, we have already the
European Convention on Human Rights, do we not?
(Mrs Roche) I think that there is a recognition that this is a good
time to have a discussion, not only about rights but also about
responsibilities. Certainly we see it as important to have some sort of
declaration of this and actually to make the rights declaratory. I think there
is a feeling, also, that it would be a good idea to actually set out in a very
accessible form for citizens of the Union exactly what those rights and
responsibilities are. I think this is a particularly good time for it.
Clearly, there are discussions that are going on about it and the UK is very
involved in those discussions.
88. If we are a nation state, why do citizens of the Union need to
have this Charter of Fundamental Rights when, as I say, and I am afraid you
have not answered my question, we already have a Convention on Human Rights
which we are about to incorporate in United Kingdom law with effect from 1
October this year?
(Mrs Roche) As you will know, Mr Howarth, that Convention is not about
the Union, it is something different from the Union. This is the actual Union,
the European Union itself declaring what are rights and responsibilities.
Clearly you and I would probably have a different approach to this but also,
of course, I see people as citizens of the Union wanting to have this
discussion. I think it could be very fruitful just to say what it is in a
declaratory form that people have as their rights but also, I must make this
clear as well, what their responsibilities are. The European Convention is
not to do with the Union but it is something actually quite separate.
89. Surely it covers most, in fact I think the European Convention
on Human Rights covers every Member of the EU. I was at a meeting of the
European Parliament Justice and Home Affairs Committee at the end of last year
on precisely this issue. It seems to me this is just simply trying to
duplicate what we have got already.
(Mrs Roche) I do not think that is the case. I think it is something
different. The European Convention is outside the Union. I think that it is
right to say that the EU has come on, it has developed. The justice and home
affairs agenda has now moved much more centre to its deliberations. I think
it is quite important for there to be discussions about what it means to be
a citizen of the Union and about what the rights are and to have a proper
discussion about that. I am not suggesting you are suggesting this in any way,
Mr Howarth, I do not see there is anything threatening about this, why we
cannot have this process.
90. Some people would suggest it is a further graphic example of
attempts by the European Union to create a United States of Europe by coming
up with a common Charter of Fundamental Rights which then can be enforced.
Surely it is pointless having this fundamental Charter if it is only
declaratory and will not be enforced? Those of us with suspicious minds think
to ourselves well, perhaps it will be declaratory in the first instance but
then it will seek to become enforceable and then we shall have a conflict,
will we not, between the European Convention on Human Rights enacted in the
United Kingdom by the Human Rights Act and a new Charter which may differ, may
it not, from the European Convention?
(Mrs Roche) I would not like, Mr Howarth, to accuse you of having a
suspicious mind.
Mr Howarth: I am a Member of Parliament, I am entitled to have a
suspicious mind.
Mr Winnick
91. There could be other descriptions.
(Mrs Roche) I had a feeling that you might see it in that way but I
do not see it in this way at all. To say this is all about that vision is just
simply not the case. I think it is a recognition that the Union has moved and
developed and it is time now to have a discussion in this area. I say it is
not just about rights, it is about our responsibilities also as citizens as
well and I think these are pretty fundamental issues.
Mr Howarth
92. I am sorry to keep pressing you on this, you have been very
untypically vague.
(Mrs Roche) That is kind of you, Mr Howarth.
93. On all the other issues we have discussed you have been very
clear and forthright. Here, forgive me, it does seem to me there is a
tremendous amount of waffle. What is the British Government's position? Other
than it thinks it is a good idea to have a discussion on this, does the
Government think that there might be potentially a conflict between this new
Charter and the existing position?
(Mrs Roche) No.
94. Is the Government concerned that perhaps there will be an
increasing expectation that such declaratory rights might become enforceable
in the courts of the UK? Where does the Government stand on this? Is it
having a general chat with its European partners?
(Mrs Roche) No, no. We do not think there is a conflict. If I may say
so, Mr Howarth, you are going rather ahead of the process. There is a process
going on, there is a Convention looking at it. Lord Goldsmith is the Prime
Minister's representative on that. We are at the stage of discussion on this.
I do not think there is anything to fear about us having an assessment now
where we are as far as the European Union is concerned, a realisation that the
Union has gone on, it has developed. It now has this whole justice and home
affairs agenda which in the early days was very tangential to it but is now
coming much to the forefront. Of course, those Members of the Convention will
want to make sure that there is not a conflict with the ECHR. What Lord
Goldsmith is doing is liaising not only with the Prime Minister but with all
other Government Departments as well. We are in the very, very early stages
of this, Mr Howarth. Let me say to you, of course, at all stages of the
process we will continue to keep this Committee and Parliament involved.
95. Is the Government not concerned that we could end up having
further erosion of the power of Parliament? We have seen that power eroded by
the European Convention on Human Rights. Government policy has been forced to
change because of its acceptance of the European Convention on Human Rights,
particularly, for example, in the case of homosexuals and the armed forces.
That was not Government policy, the Government argued against it at the
European Court of Human Rights, lost, and therefore implemented it.
Parliament has not been entitled to take a view on it. Is this not another
example of where we could be setting up a whole new Charter of obligations on
Member States which will further erode the power of this place to represent
the concerns of the people who elected us, the British people?
(Mrs Roche) I do not accept that analysis at all, Mr Howarth.
Actually, if you look at the European Convention, all we have done is to
incorporate the Convention which, as I understand it, was accepted by your own
front bench as well, I understand, I may be wrong.
96. I cannot remember.
(Mrs Roche) I do not think they opposed it, I think they completely
accepted it. You will know that as far as the court is concerned the country
has accepted those decisions and acted on them for years. Not just this
administration but the administration that you supported, Mr Howarth, and
administrations before that. I do not think we should see this in any way as
some sort of big conspiracy, it is very, very far from that.
Mr Winnick
97. Are homosexuals part of the British people, just to clarify the
point Mr Howarth made?
(Mrs Roche) Absolutely, Mr Winnick.
Mr Howarth
98. Can I move on to another specific point on the question of the
membership of the United Kingdom's representatives on this drafting body. Can
you tell us who they are? How were they selected? What role did the House of
Commons have in determining the selection?
(Mrs Roche) Certainly I can give you the full list. The membership
of the Convention was chosen according to a process that was agreed at Cologne
and Tampere. It gave the majority of places to representatives of national
parliaments and Members of the European Parliament. I will give you a full
list of those.
99. Can I tell you who they are: they are Win Griffiths ---
(Mrs Roche) There you go, you see.
100. A Member of Parliament representing the House of Commons.
Lord Bowness representing ---
(Mrs Roche) I meant the full international list we will give you as
well, Mr Howarth.
Mr Howarth: I am quite to keen to know, I think people in this
Committee are quite keen to know who is negotiating this on their behalf here.
Lord Bowness representing the other place, the House of Lords. Lord Goldsmith,
as you say, the Prime Minister's appointee. Timothy Kirkhope, MEP, who is a
Conservative appointee I know. Graham Watson, MEP, who I think is a Liberal
Democrat appointee. Andrew Duff, MEP, I am not sure which party he is.
Bob Russell: He is my MEP, the Eastern Counties, Chairman. A good man.
Mr Winnick
101. Part of the British public.
(Mrs Roche) You will be very pleased to know, Mr Howarth, that in the
last couple of weeks or so I have met with both Graham Watson and also Timothy
Kirkhope as well. I have discussed these matters with them.
Mr Howarth
102. Did you come to any conclusions as a result of those
discussions?
(Mrs Roche) We had full and frank discussions.
103. Like the Foreign Secretary had with Mr Mugabe yesterday?
(Mrs Roche) No. What we did was to discuss the process and basically
their understanding of it. Just to say to you, Mr Howarth, what I have tried
to do, because obviously as you have just said Mr Watson and Mr Kirkhope are
Members of the European Parliament in addition to the JHA Council, is to pay
a visit to the Parliament because I think it is important to have meetings
with MEPs and clearly from different political parties as well to maintain
that contact. That is why I have had those meetings with them.
Chairman
104. Minister, may we turn now to the draft Convention on Mutual
Assistance in Criminal Matters. It may be appropriate for Mr Warne to say
something about this. Was political agreement reached on that agreement at
the Justice and Home Affairs Council? I just wanted to say, also, that of
course in the context of what we have just been talking about, this Charter,
the results of organised crime impact on our freedoms under that proposed
Charter makes it doubly important. Was there a political agreement reached?
(Mrs Roche) No, there was not. I will bring Mr Warne in. There was
not political agreement reached. There were some data protection issues that
were raised by Luxembourg but we are hopeful looking towards the May Council.
If I could bring in Mr Warne.
(Mr Warne) That was precisely the position. Agreement is reached on
everything now, I think, except the data protection provision where Luxembourg
has some difficulty with the present text. The Presidency are seeking to
resolve that difficulty so as to accommodate Luxembourg's concern. Subject to
that I would expect there to be agreement reached at the May Council.
105. Excellent. Very good. Can you say a word about your views
about the way Europol is turning out? What do you say about those who suspect
this is the groundwork for a European police force?
(Mrs Roche) I do not think that is the case. I will bring in Mr Warne
who has got very active contact with it. I think it is so far so good
actually as far as it is concerned, particularly some of the initiatives that
Europol has been involved in, for example, like money laundering which again
is exactly the sort of area where European co-operation is very necessary and
also where forming expertise is very important. Certainly I think we would
look also to the formation of joint teams and also to the Police Chiefs Task
Force. I think this is very important. This is very much an area that the UK
has been progressing. I think that it is something that is very important. The
answer I would give you to allay any concerns on this, Mr Corbett, is that we
know that international criminals, the bad guys, are highly organised,
certainly they do not respect anybody's borders, therefore it is very
important that initiatives such as Europol and the Police Chiefs Task Force
that we give every encouragement to do so. If I could bring Mr Warne in.
(Mr Warne) I think, Chairman, Europol has made a good start. It was only
when the Europol Convention was completed in 1999 that it was able to handle
personal data as opposed to general information, eg about drugs routes. It has
not been going long in terms of its full set of responsibilities. It is being
used increasingly by Member States to seek information and, of course, to
provide information. The UK is one of its main users. We want to see Europol
develop strongly into an effective intelligence organisation for Europe on
criminal matters rather in the same way as the National Criminal Intelligence
Service provides that role in the UK. On your point about the European police
force, I would simply make the comment that there is no executive authority
for Europol, it does not have powers to operate by way of arrest or on other
Member States' territories. There are many ways in which they can support our
law enforcement effort. We would want them to do that and, as I mentioned
earlier, I think the Police Chiefs Task Force fills the gap between Europol
with its overall picture and investigative teams on the ground. We support
Europol, we think they are doing very useful work. We want them to continue
with that work but in a supportive and encouraging role rather than a role
which gives them their own executive authority.
106. Can I just ask you perhaps to say a little bit more about co-
operation, say, over money laundering. If we go back to the earlier
discussion about people smuggling, let us talk about people involved in this
country left with large amounts of money which they have to get rid of. Are
we able through Europol, where we have suspicions of where that money is going
perhaps elsewhere within the European Union, to get co-operation via the
national police force, the same as central banks, in order to say "Look, this
is the guy we are targeting"? All central banks, as you will know better than
I do, have triggers for amounts deposited that start bells ringing. Is that
co-operation in place or being developed?
(Mr Warne) It is being developed, Chairman. Tampere said that Europol
should do more in the area of money laundering and I think we need to look at
money laundering across the range of criminality because it is the means by
which the criminality is converted into personal profit. We need to see it
in the broadest sense. I think the disclosure of suspicious transactions, and
interpreting the intelligence arising from that, is an area where we would
like to see Europol develop its capacity.
107. Can you say whether a date has been set yet for the first
meeting of the European Heads of Police? Who will go from this country?
(Mr Warne) Yes, there is a meeting this week or next week in Lisbon, I
cannot remember the date but within a matter of days, which the Portuguese
Presidency proposed as a means of bringing the participants together for them
to discuss how they think they can best perform these tasks. The UK's
representative will be Roy Penrose who is the Director-General of the National
Crime Squad because, again, Tampere talked about an operational focus for
these people and, as I indicated earlier, the ability to commit resources on
a multilateral basis to attack problems that are common to all of us.
Chairman: Thank you very much. Now have any colleagues got any
questions they want to ask? We have jumped about on our agenda.
Mr Cawsey
108. The Tampere Summit, it was concluded on judicial co-operation
and mutual recognition and not only was this supported by the UK Government,
I understand it was a UK Government initiative.
(Mrs Roche) Absolutely.
109. Good. Tell us what you mean by it?
(Mrs Roche) What we mean by this is a recognition of the judicial
decisions of other Member States. Actually, Mr Cawsey, I do regard this as
being very important. You are absolutely right, this is very much a UK
initiative. We were very pleased that it was endorsed by other EU Member
States at Tampere. We think it is a really very, very practical way forward,
very important. Each Member State is going to have its own independent legal
system and our's being a common law system is a very unique system, obviously,
that we find in some other places but very much originated by us. It is a very
radical concept. It could mean, if it is fully applied, that arrest warrants
or other court orders would become directly enforceable across EU borders.
In a sense, it is making sure that we have a system in place that we can
tackle organised crime. Also, I think that it has other benefits as well as
far as civil law is concerned, in terms of consumer rights and consumer
protection. In terms of the message to the British public, these are very
practical aspects that can come about from our membership of the EU.
110. What made the Government, and indeed the Summit, decide that
this was a better route to take than looking for straight forward
harmonisation where it could be achieved, if the idea is to tackle the crime
on an EU base?
(Mrs Roche) I think the Prime Minister very successfully persuaded his
colleagues that this was a very practical way forward. I think it is right
to say that we have been very impressed by the way in which this is now being
embraced by other EU Member States.
111. Do you think they signed up for it and it is well supported
across the whole Union?
(Mrs Roche) Yes. This is a process. The sort of thing that we will
have to look at is to make sure that there are proper minimum standards of
rights, for example, for defendants in the process so that equity is
preserved. I think it will be fair to say, Mr Cawsey, there is quite a lot
of work to do in this. I think it is a very positive way forward. I will use
the word I have said again, it is very practical. Let me give you one other
practical application of our suggestion, the freezing of criminal assets has
been chosen as the first application of mutual recognition. I think that is
probably something that we would all want to subscribe to.
112. Who decides what is going to be incorporated in this mutual
recognition? Is it going to be the Council of Ministers?
(Mrs Roche) Yes. It will be the JHA Council. I should stress, Mr
Cawsey, there is quite a lot of work to be done on this, we are really at the
beginning stages of this.
Bob Russell
113. If I could go back to the asylum issue. Minister, you will
know I am very concerned at the numbers of bogus asylum seekers and my
thoughts that perhaps some of our European neighbours are not doing as much
as they should do, indeed I have mentioned that on this side the Government
should be doing more - I use the term - with body heat seeking equipment. I
think there should be more emphasis from Government. However, there are some
innocent people in this, there are always the children, whether they are
genuine or bogus asylum seekers. Have you seen Early Day Motion 587 headed
"children of asylum seekers"? If you have, or irrespective of whether you
have, will you be looking at that to see whether that apparent aspect can be
put right? It does seem children of asylum seekers are not being treated in
accordance with Article 31 of the United Nations Convention on Rights for the
Child.
(Mrs Roche) I have not seen all the details of the EDM, Mr Russell,
but I am familiar with the argument. I would not accept the argument. I
understand the campaign that is going on but we do take our obligations under
the UN Convention on Children very, very seriously indeed. In fact, we have
special processes to deal with children. I think there are two aspects to
this, Mr Russell. First of all, there are children who come to this country
unaccompanied, and we do take those responsibilities very, very seriously
indeed. Then, of course, there are the children of those families of asylum
seekers. First of all, we make it very, very clear, for example, as far as
unaccompanied children, that they are always interviewed by people who are
trained in dealing with children, that an independent representative can be
present. Also, there is a Government panel set up with the refugee
organisations to help children in these sorts of situations, so we do take our
responsibilities to children very, very seriously indeed and indeed our
responsibilities to unaccompanied children as well. One of the difficulties,
I think it is worthwhile, probably, my pointing this out, Mr Russell, we do
have with unaccompanied children sometimes is that we know - and again it
comes back to our earlier discussion, Mr Corbett, about the smuggling and the
facilitation - that some of the unaccompanied children that we see are not
minors at all, they are people who are older than that. Again, this is a very
cynical exploitation. We are very careful in all of this because there could
be very real child protection issues involved. The other thing that I am
doing, also, Mr Russell, which might interest you, since I have been in my
post, is I now have very regular meetings with all the children's charities
and organisations in the field specifically to talk about children's issues.
I have found those meetings very helpful and I think all the organisations
have found them useful as well.
Mr Linton
114. Two quick questions, if I may, Minister. There was an
agreement at Tampere about treatment of third country nationals, and
particularly about bringing members of their families to live with them in the
European Union. I know that not all governments have been happy about this,
I think the Danes have had trouble with arranged marriages in this respect.
What is the Government's attitude? Is this something which should be done on
a collective basis or does it prefer to do it alone?
(Mrs Roche) Again, we will look at it before we decide what to do. I
think it is fair to say, Mr Linton, we do have some reservations about the way
in which it is framed, particularly, as I say, the possibility of abuse of the
system. As you are quite right to point out, we are not the only country that
has had some difficulties with this, others have as well. Clearly we will look
at it but we are not happy with it. As I say, as we have the special
arrangement which has been made for us post-Amsterdam, that is always useful
in these circumstances because we have to decide whether we opt in or not.
115. One final question from me, there has been a lot of focus
today on unfounded claims, I thought it might be helpful if I could ask you
to spell out for genuine refugees coming to this country how they can best
make a well founded claim and be assured that it will be treated seriously?
(Mrs Roche) I think the main thing, Mr Linton, is for me to say that
the individuals themselves know. I think history has shown - and I think it
comes back to something I have been saying over the last day or so when I have
been explaining, for example, the new system that we are setting up of the
National Asylum Support Service - if you are a genuine refugee what is it that
you want. First of all, what you want is safety from persecution and that is
what we provide. The second thing you want is you want your case to be
decided as quickly as possible, and that is what we have got to do. Thank you
for giving me the opportunity to say it once again. It is because I so
passionately believe in the honourable concept of asylum that we are
continuing to spell this out. The other thing I would say, also, very
strongly, to those people who make unfounded claims, that the biggest enemy
of the genuine asylum seeker is those people who make completely unfounded and
cynical claims, they really do bring the whole system into disrepute.
Mr Howarth
116. Minister, I am sorry to return to judicial co-operation
again, I thought we were staying on it originally. Can I press you a bit
further on this because you put it in the context of seeking to deal with
cross-border fraud, traffic in illegal immigration and drugs and so forth,
which everybody would agree are sensible areas for international co-operation.
(Mrs Roche) Yes.
117. Again, those of us with a suspicious mind, and you have
rightly identified that I do indeed have a suspicious mind ---
(Mrs Roche) I said perhaps, Mr Howarth.
118. You are correct, I do not want you to be under any illusion
about that, I do have a suspicious mind. I do feel a lot of people do feel
there is a risk that this co-operation could become the precursor to
harmonisation. Can I ask you specifically, is it the case that under this
judicial co-operation it will be possible for somebody convicted of an offence
in another European country, which is not an offence in this country, to be
detained in this country, have their assets seized and removed from this
country without being able to submit their case to the United Kingdom courts?
(Mrs Roche) No, because what I have said, Mr Howarth, is we will be
looking at proper safeguards in the system. There is a way down the track we
have to go. Let me make it perfectly clear to you, this is not harmonisation,
this is not corpus juris, this is a practical way forward. This is recognition
of the systems that other Member States have. I think it is really important
that we do not let criminals off the hook because they can somehow rely on the
different processes and procedures that different governments have. I think
you are absolutely right - absolutely right, if I may say so - to focus on the
safeguards that we will need to put in place. We are absolutely determined
that there are proper minimum standards that you will need to do. This is a
long way ahead of us.
119. Thank you for that reassurance, Minister, because in the Home
Office paper dealing with this issue last year, the Home Office did suggest
that public opinion is not yet always ready to accept that the judicial
authorities and procedures of other Member States are equivalent to their
domestic courts. Governments will have to inform and educate public opinion.
I hope that does not mean Alastair Campbell is let loose on us because we know
what kind of information and education he gives. May I ask you, Minister, if
you recognise the dangers here, the need for safeguards, when do you expect
that the final arrangements for judicial co-operation to be established and
what further consultations will you be having with us as Members of
Parliament?
(Mrs Roche) It is too soon to give an absolute date, Mr Howarth. As
far as discussions are concerned, as the whole process goes through I will
continue to issue explanatory memorandum to the scrutiny committees which are
very important and I will continue, obviously, to keep the Home Affairs Select
Committee fully informed. I think the point you raised, which is the point you
make, is a valuable one. Clearly people have confidence in their own systems
but also they need to know about the systems of other Member States and, as
I say, what safeguards are there. I think these are very important questions
that will have to be addressed.
120. I am sure we will be pleased to hear that the Government is
ruling out corpus juris.
(Mrs Roche) Absolutely.
121. Can I ask you one final text book question, which you may
need to take advice on. I would not expect an answer on this today but I
would like an answer on it, if I may, at some point. Article K.7 of the
Amsterdam Treaty, which is now Article 35 of the consolidated Treaty, provides
that "The Court of Justice of the European Communities shall have jurisdiction
... to give preliminary rulings on the validity and interpretation of
framework decisions and decisions, on the interpretation of conventions
established under this Title and on the validity and interpretation of the
measures implementing them." The Member States were invited to sign up to
that. I believe the British Government did not accept that as being a very
substantial additional power and I wonder if you could at some point let me
know whether the British Government under paragraph 2 of Article K.7, now
Article 35, has accepted the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice to
give such preliminary rules?
(Mrs Roche) I will write to you. It is not just about that, Mr
Howarth, there is a whole agenda as well about when matters are referred to
the European Court of Justice and post-Amsterdam the reference to the ECJ
comes from the highest domestic court which in our case would be, of course,
the House of Lords. There is quite a deal of discussion that is going on at
the moment about the European Court and perhaps it would be helpful if I wrote
to the Chairman about exactly where we are with those discussions. It is fair
to say we have had a number of discussions about these. There have been
discussions with Member States and there have been discussions with the
Commission as well. I will write to you, Mr Corbett.
Chairman
122. Thank you, Minister. Can I thank Mrs Pallett and Mr Warne as
well. I hope you found your return to the other side of this Committee
enjoyable. We value what you have been able to say to us and thank you.
(Mrs Roche) Thank you very much indeed for your courtesy.
