PULL FACTORS
9. We were shocked to see hundreds of people - mainly young
and from many different countries - milling around at the Red
Cross centre at Sangatte near Calais in basic but safe conditions
in France and waiting for an opportunity to make a hazardous and
illegal crossing of the Channel to seek asylum in the UK. Many
of them told us they were economic migrants who had travelled
huge distances at great expense and were simply waiting to get
into the UK. We have subsequently learnt that the number housed
there has increased. We find this situation most disturbing on
three grounds: the conditions in which they are living at Sangattte,
the fact that they are just waiting to enter the UK illegally
and their lack of any legal status in France.
10. We have not taken evidence on the factors which make people
want to leave their countries and move elsewhere: poverty, warfare
and economic disparities between regions - the 'push' factors.
In general, people leave their country for another country to
flee persecution, find work or join their family. There are also
key 'pull' factors which attract people to particular countries.
People who have left their own country are attracted to different
countries for different reasons. Some of these factors may be
more perceived than real. The factors which may make the UK more
attractive than other countries appear to be:
- family, cultural and historical links
- availability and perception of social security benefits
- more generous interpretation of asylum law
- slow decision-making on asylum-cases
- lack of an efficient removal system for people refused asylum
- access to public services such as free health, education and
housing
- scope for living in the country without documentation
- general economic prosperity.
11. The attractiveness of the English language and family
links are not matters which can be much influenced by public policy.
Some of those seeking to come to the UK are attracted by long-established
family, cultural and historical links, such as with the Indian
sub-continent. More recent migration has established small communities
from other countries which now themselves attract people to the
UK.
12. Job prospects depend both on economic prosperity and easy
access to the labour market. There may be conflicting policy interests
here, with the domestic labour force not necessarily able to meet
all the skills needs or provide workers for low paid unskilled
jobs.
13. The availability and scale of social security benefits
and access to other public services is something which can be
regulated by the state, but perceptions may be more important
in attracting people than the reality. People both within and
outside the UK seem to have exaggerated impressions of the generosity
of the UK's social security benefits for asylum seekers. A MORI
survey for Readers' Digest in October 2000 showed people in the
UK thought asylum seekers receive £113 a week in benefit
payments - about three times the actual figure of £36 in
cash and vouchers for a person aged 25 or more (plus the cost
of accommodation).[13]
At the same time a recent televison programme showed Romanians
who had been told that asylum seekers were given £800 a month
in the UK.
| "The [Parliamentary] Assembly [of the Council of Europe] is convinced that, besides stepping up security measures and control mechanisms at the European borders to apprehend clandestine immigrants, member states should increase their cooperation to effectively combat human trafficking, and do their utmost to find ways to stop this modern slavery on their territory. They should also take more seriously the root causes of clandestine migration and cooperate more with the countries of origin of clandestine immigrants". [Draft] Recommendation on Clandestine immigration and the fight against traffickers following the deaths at Dover on 19 June 2000 Doc 8782
|
14. It is probable that the UK's interpretation of international
law and the delay in reaching asylum decisions in recent years
have also made the UK an attractive destination. A slow decision-making
process means a long period in the UK drawing benefits or working
- irrespective of the outcome of the asylum application. A more
liberal interpretation of international law makes it more likely
that the application will be granted in the UK than in some other
EU countries. Equally, UK immigration law for non-asylum cases
is different from that of other countries. We deal in paragraphs
136 to 138 below with the differences between the UK and other
EU countries in interpreting international law.
15. Unlike some other countries, the UK does not require people
living here to carry an identity card or produce evidence of nationality
when using public services. This may make it easier to live in
the UK without any documentation. In France such documentation
is required but people do live without it - "sans papiers".
Asylum seekers with a provisional residence permit have access
to the French national health system. In Germany asylum seekers
only have access to medical treatment in cases of serious illness
or acute pain. Italy provides free healthcare to asylum-seekers.
School attendance is compulsory for asylum seekers' children in
France and Italy; but access to schools in France requires only
proof of residence; in Germany education is provided by most of
the regional (Länder) governments.
16. Some European countries, such as Hungary and, to a certain
extent, Italy, are clearly transit countries through which asylum
seekers and economic migrants pass; others, like Spain, appear
to be the end destination of most clandestine entrants from North
Africa who hope to work there. By reason of its position, the
UK is at the end of the line for those travelling overland through
Europe. Those who enter other EU countries on the continent of
Europe do not encounter any internal borders until they reach
the English Channel or North Sea - they are within the area known
as the Schengen Convention (after the village at which
the EU agreement was made). No other country has the means of
border control or any incentive to check the flow of those who
see the UK as their final destination. The pattern of past migration
and the lack of internal borders must create a dynamic which leads
people to the Red Cross warehouse at Sangatte near Calais where
traffickers will prey on them.
17. In this context it is easier to maintain border controls
at sea ports than across land borders. While the UK's borders
are almost exclusively sea ones (except with the Republic of Ireland),
some other EU states also have to maintain extensive sea borders.
Spain and Italy have long coast lines (as well as land borders
with other EU countries in the Schengen area) but, unlike the
UK, the countries across the sea from them are not EU member states.
From what we learnt on our visits the UK can benefit from how
Schengen countries handle these issues. We also describe in paragraphs
110 to 124 below the equipment being used for border controls
in other countries.
18. It is not easy to measure the relative effect of each
different 'pull' factor. There appears to have been no detailed
research on this. Even those which can be affected by policy decisions
within the UK cannot be changed in a short time. Whatever the
strength of those pull factors, the Home Secretary told us :
"The principal driver of asylum applicants, unfounded
as well as well-founded applicants, is political instability elsewhere,
as well as rising poverty".[14]
19. A large number of those applying for asylum are genuinely
seeking refuge from persecution in their own country; others want
to live in the UK for compelling economic reasons or simply want
to improve their lot. Whatever their motivation, many asylum-seekers
take great risks to reach the UK and arrive in a state of desperation.
We see no prospect that pressures which lead people to come to
the UK and other developed countries will ease. Recent figures
for asylum applications are shown in charts C and D (after paragraph
22). The Government should examine the 'pull' factors (set
out in paragraph 10 above) to see which ones they can legitimately
influence.
20. The UK is not alone amongst European countries in experiencing
a growing hostility towards those claiming refuge from persecution
in their own countries. In this climate, there is a danger of
dismissing all claims of asylum as bogus, and concluding they
are being used as a cover solely by those seeking employment or
wanting to take advantage of Britain's welfare system.
21. For so long as there are tyrannical regimes and civil
wars there will be those who have every understandable reason
to try to escape to a safe country, often putting their lives
and those of their families at real risk. It is for the Home Office
to decide whether claimants for asylum meet the criteria set out
in the 1951 UN Convention in a reasonable time. Avoidable delay
in the application and appeal process can create an impression
that claimants can endlessly prolong their stay or manage to remain
despite being refused permission to do so. This can reinforce
hostility towards them, as was articulated by the remarks of the
Rt Hon Michael Heseltine MP on 1 January 2001.[15]
22. We accept that asylum generates issues of policy and administration
which are proper subjects for political debate. We acknowledge
that such debate should be conducted in a sensitive fashion, and
we note that the United Kingdom has a long and honourable record
in providing refuge for those genuinely fleeing persecution.
IMMIGRATION POLICY
23. Spain has labour shortages in agriculture, building, fishing
and domestic work. A lack of labour mobility results in unemployment
in northern Spain and eastern Hungary while other parts of both
countries have unfilled job vacancies. Britain has also found
at times that demand for labour exceeds supply in certain sectors.
This may cover transport workers in the 1950s, seasonal farm workers
in the 1990s, and, more recently, nurses, doctors and information
technology specialists. The Immigration Minister, Barbara Roche
MP, said on 11 September 2000 that labour shortages were becoming
apparent in some sectors of the economy. The age structure of
the population is likely to reduce the proportion of working people
to retired people over the next 50 years. We accept that labour
shortages in particular parts of the economy and long-term demographic
trends reducing the size of the domestic workforce could be addressed
by issuing more work permits. The Home Secretary told us :
"this [speech] was an attempt, which I think was very
successful, to open up the debate and to begin a more positive
focus on the benefits which immigration, migration have brought
to the United Kingdom, not only in recent decades but over the
centuries. .... There is not any plan at the moment to produce
a White Paper on this. We see this more as a progressive approach.
... and it may also be the case that ... we have strong economic
needs for further migration of particular kinds of people, that
is a well founded thesis on top of it. ... we have made already
some changes in the immigration rules to make it easier for people
to come here for work".[16]
24. We welcome the wider debate about immigration policy
as a timely reminder that there is a broader context, including
employment policy, in which border controls should be seen. There
should be a known and clear policy on which immigrants, if any,
the country wants to encourage to meet labour shortages and demographic
changes.
11 Appendix
9 para 1. Back
12 Q
344 (Mr Hardwick). Back
13 Reader's
Digest October 2000. Back
14 Q
412 (Home Secretary). Back
15 Daily
Mail 1 January 2001: "As
Deputy Prime Minister [in 1995-97] ... I came to three stark conclusions.
The first is that a very large number of those seeking asylum
are cheats, quite deliberately making bogus claims and false allegations
in order to get into this country. They wish to jump the queue
made up of those quite properly applying for immigrant status,
and others genuinely fleeing from brutal tyrannies. The second
was that the demands on scarce housing and medical care made by
dishonest 'economic migrants' was likely to stretch the patience
of voters and I could well understand why. The third was that
the problem of phoney asylum-seekers was likely to grow as the
impression spread that this country was a soft touch. Above all,
I could see no reason why my most vulnerable constituents - honest
and hard-working people who had paid their taxes all their lives
- should be pushed to the back of the queue for housing and hospital
treatment by dubious asylum-seekers." Back
16 Q
393 (Home Secretary). Back
