Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40-59)
MR KEITH
BEST, MR
NICK HARDWICK
AND SIR
ANDREW GREEN
TUESDAY 17 SEPTEMBER 2002
40. That is the answer to Mrs Dean's question,
is it not?
(Sir Andrew Green) Thank you, yes, good answer.
David Winnick
41. I declare an interest that goes back many,
many years in what is now IAS. My question is to you Sir Andrew.
When you spoke about the European Union people coming into Britain,
I believe I heard you correctly that you said that is part of
the Treaty. Well, we know that, but you do not have any particular
objections, do you, to those coming from the European Union?
(Sir Andrew Green) As you say, they are part of the
Treaty but our problems is numbers, as I have explained, and the
numbers are in balance so it is not an issue.
42. You are quite happy with the numbers of
people coming in?
(Sir Andrew Green) They are balanced so it is not
an issue.
43. As regards legal immigration—recognising
the point made about illegal immigration, overstayers, people
who come in in the back of lorries and trucks—do you believe
that the numbers now in Britain arising from legal immigration
and their children and their grandchildren from those non-EU countries
are excessive?
(Sir Andrew Green) I think that is more a political
question. What we would like to do is to put forward to the public
the scale and nature of the migration that is taking place. That
will throw up exactly the kind of question you ask, Mr Winnick—is
this reasonable and sensible? How, as Mrs Dean says, are you going
to reduce this if that is what you want to do? It seems to me
these are political questions and very sensitive questions.
44. It is all political. Inevitably the questions
of immigration and migration are all political matters, are they
not?
(Sir Andrew Green) I am trying to stay out of that
for a moment and I am trying to get the facts out and then to
address the economic arguments, which I think you can see from
today's discussion that some of them are pretty flaky. Thirdly,
there will be an issue as regards policy, but I am really not
ready to speak about that today.
45. Would it be unfair, Sir Andrew, to say your
organisation—and I am trying to be non-political in my question—is
an organisation that is basically unhappy with having a multi-cultural
country?
(Sir Andrew Green) No, I do not think
so. I think that we have gained a great deal from the migrants
that we have already received. You only have to walk down the
street to see the variety that has come to our society. I have
no difficulty with that and I particularly do not have any difficulty
with many of the individuals concerned, who can be absolutely
charming or absolutely dreadful like anybody else.
46. Quite.
(Sir Andrew Green) One could say perhaps that there
is a law of diminishing returns, that we have a lot of variety
now, and that you are not going to get all that much more variety
from more of the different varieties, but that is perhaps not
a very strong point.
47. It has been argued that all previous immigration
into Britain—for example Jews, Poles—have, on the
whole, despite all the controversy that occurred at the time (and
there was a great deal particularly at the beginning of the 20th
century) strengthened this country. My question to you, Sir Andrew,
is recognising again your concern about illegal immigration and
the rest—and you do not have a monopoly about that—do
you believe that Britain is a better country, a stronger country
as a result of what has happened since 1955 as regards immigration?
(Sir Andrew Green) Let me take the first half of your
question. I do not think there is any doubt that the Jewish community,
for a start, which was probably the biggest, most significant
people before 1950, have made a huge contribution. That is incredibly
self-evident.
48. People like you did conduct a campaign,
did they not, at the time, which has been well-documented?
(Sir Andrew Green) May I just say not "people
like me". I do not accept that for a moment. The point I
am making now is it is a difference of scale. I believe it is
the case—and you will know more about this than I do—that
in something like 1906 there was a law designed to reduce the
number of Jewish people coming to this country.
49. I do not know why I should know more about
it than you.
(Sir Andrew Green) But you are talking
about history. So then you could make the argument because the
numbers came in at relatively low levels that they were accepted
and were integrated and made a huge contribution. The problem
now—and I do say it is a problem—is that there are
very large numbers of people, it is very difficult for society
to absorb them and, indeed, some people of that number do not
seem particularly to want to integrate in our society. Those are
all wider issues and I think they are more for you than me. What
I am saying—
50. You have not answered my question, if I
may say so. Is this country better, more positive or otherwise
as a result of what has happened in the migration into this country
in the post-War years? It is a simple question, yes or no really.
(Sir Andrew Green) No question is as
simple as that. I think there are advantages and disadvantages,
that is the long and the short of it. You can take examples like
the Kenyan Asians who have done extraordinarily well and are extremely
capable.
51. And there was great opposition to them coming
into Britain in 1972.
(Sir Andrew Green) Probably but again that was only
60,000. We are talking now about four times that, if not five
times that, every year. Numbers is an issue; let us not get away
from that.
David Winnick: No-one challenges that
but you have not answered my question.
Chairman: It may not be the answer that
you wish to hear.
David Winnick: He has not answered it
at all, it is not a matter of what what I want to hear.
Angela Watkinson
52. Can I ask Sir Andrew to clarify one point
which I may have misunderstood. When you were referring to 180,000,
I understood that to be net non-EU illegal immigration. Did you
say subsequently that it included asylum seekers, or did I misunderstand
you?
(Sir Andrew Green) This is a rather complex area.
The figures produced by the ONS include an allowance for asylum
seekers and failed asylum seekers. That is how I understand it.
The point I was making is 180,000 is one number and the undetected
illegals are another. These are illegals we do not know about
and are additional. We do know about some illegals, which is failed
asylum seekers (and last year there were 100,000) and they should
be—I hope they are—included in the 180,000 in due
course. I hope that is clear. It is very confusing.
Chairman: Both the other witnesses are
wishing to add something. I am anxious not to extend this much
more because I want to move on to asylum seekers, which is our
main interest. Arguments about figures, in my experience, can
go on indefinitely. If there are written points you wish to make
in response to disputing Sir Andrew's figures, can I ask you to
do that because we have now been an hour on figures and I want
to move on to asylum seekers. Mr Prosser?
Mr Prosser
53. We have already talked about some of the
so-called "pull" factors which attract asylum seekers
to this country rather than other countries and there has been
a lot of discussion in the past about Britain being a soft touch,
that too many benefits are given. Mr Best referred to it earlier
and referred to Home Office research which has been made quite
recently, which effectively talks about family ties, use of the
English language and the fact, which we should be proud of I suppose,
that we are seen and perceived as being a tolerant and fair society.
Can I have your views on that most recent research?
(Mr Hardwick) It was very helpful research and I have
to say it bears out our own direct experience of working with
refugees and asylum seekers. When you think about it, the idea
that people in refugee camps—Somalis in refugee camps in
Kenya or Afghan refugees in camps in Pakistan—are deciding
upon their destination based on the detailed knowledge of the
benefits or otherwise that they might get in the United Kingdom
compared with Germany or France is fanciful. Frankly, I find it
hard to sit down with the aid of the Internet and work out the
different treatment across Europe, so the idea that refugees who
are not so equipped can do that in a calculated way is false.
I do think a key really important lesson can be learnt from the
voucher system. The voucher system was predicated on the basis
that people were coming here for the benefits that they could
obtain and if you introduced a voucher system people would not
come. Whatever else you think about the pros and cons of the voucher
system, it comprehensively demolished that point of view. The
introduction of the voucher system had no impact at all on the
decision of people to come or not to come here. Our view is what
makes people decide is, first of all, you need to make a distinction
between why people leave their own country. If you look at the
top asylum producing countries, they are countries that have been
in conflict for decades and the choices that people make (and
often they do not have a choice because the traffickers decide
for them) are based on historic ties, linguistic ties, and family
and community ties. That is why it is very difficult to predict
the numbers. A few years ago the big refugee movements arose from
the former Yugoslavia. Where did people on the whole go then?
To Germany because that is where people had gone as guest workers.
At that point it was Germany who had the big crisis. Now international
crises have moved on and if you look at what is happening to asylum
seekers, the numbers from Afghanistan and Sri Lanka are beginning
to fall as the situation there changes and the numbers from Iraq
are going up again. No surprise there if you look at what is actually
happening. So you have to look at the push factors in terms of
what makes people leave their own country. If you look at individual
destinations, people make much more human and individual decisions
rather than terribly complex economic calculations of benefit.
I think Home Office research stated the obvious and I think it
is absolutely right.
(Mr Best) I think the research bears out things that
we have been saying for some time. I accept that it was a small
piece of qualitative research. I think 65 people were interviewed
in depth. In our view there are four reasons why asylum seekers
try to get to the UK and they are all reasons of which this country
should be very proud. First is language, the fact that for many
people around the world the only other language they speak other
than their own is English and so therefore they are likely to
want to go to an Anglophone country rather than another. The second
is the historic links to which Mr Hardwick was referring. It is
sad in a way that many of those countries that have generated
asylum seekers for reasons of persecution are Commonwealth countries
or they are ones which have had historic links with Britain. Again,
if you look back at the history of the British Empire, perhaps
it is not surprising that so large a part of the world was affected
by Britain at some stage. If you are looking to go to another
country, the likelihood is that you would want to go if you can
to another country where at least some of the institutions are
familiar and indeed there are those links with your country. I
think a third reason is the existence of settled communities in
this country. Again, if you are Somali and you want to come to
another country, you are likely to want to go to a country that
has got a Somali community in order to provide that kind of community
support that is there. It is so important that when people come
to a new country they find that degree of support. The last reason
is the fact that I believe that Britain still has a reputation
abroad of being a fair and just country, one that is careful about
the interests of minorities. Indeed, it is arguable that we still
have the most effective race relations legislation in the whole
of the European Union in this country. I think these are factors
which are material to those people who are able to make a choice.
Very often I think one must remember that many of these people
do not have much choice, particularly if they are put into the
hands of traffickers. The traffickers will take them more or less
where the traffickers will be able to take them to and they will
not have a choice as to where they end up.
54. Sir Andrew, you have mentioned this morning
that the biggest single pull factor, using your figures (which
we might not support) is that nine out of ten asylum seekers or
people coming into this country will remain even though they have
lost their case. Do you still stick to that point?
(Sir Andrew Green) Yes and I would like to demonstrate
that. May I first of all astonish you, Chairman, by saying that
I agree with almost everything my colleagues have said about this.
If they are genuine refugees, let us accept them, let us look
after them. It is the considerable numbers who are not accepted
for asylum that are the problem and, of course, there is a distinction,
and an important one, between asylum and ELR. The acceptance rate
for asylum, including those who succeed on appeal, is 20% over
the last nine years and for ELR it is 20%. Those are not people
suffering persecution. They are refugees from war and famine which
is exactly not covered by the 1951 Convention. If we are talking
about asylum, we should be talking strictly about those who qualify.
The other 80% do not. If you want to help refugees, and we certainly
should it seems to me, you do it much more effectively in refugee
camps. At the moment we are spending on asylum seekers as much
as on our entire bilateral overseas aid. That kind of money would
do real good in the refugee camps whereas here it is just expensive
to put people in tower blocks in front of the television doing
nothing.
Chairman
55. What I want you to explain is what are the
pull factors?
(Sir Andrew Green) The pull factor is the nine out
of ten and I would like to show the Committee some figures.
56. Before we do that, do you agree with Mr
Hardwick and Mr Best that, generally speaking, any difference
between benefits systems here and on the Continent is not a significant
factor?
(Sir Andrew Green) Not particularly. I think it is
word of mouth and it is existing communities, the English language,
the availability of work, the freedom of this country, which is
fantastic. If you have lived in the countries I have lived in,
you would realise how incredibly lucky we and they are.
57. So broadly you are at one on that point?
(Sir Andrew Green) Absolutely. May I ask if you have
got the paper?
58. We have them.
(Sir Andrew Green) The latest Home Office statistics[2]
reveal in a new section which gives decisions by year of outcome—and
that is the third section in the table in front of you—the
seriousness of the situation in respect of removals. If you look
at the right-hand column and the line that I have marked A, you
will see that in the year 2001 there were 126,000 cases decided.
If you now look at B, you will see that the total granted asylum
and ELR which on appeal was allowed was 41,940 [in 2001], so you
take those away. If you look at C, you will see the number who
were removed or voluntarily departed [9,285 in 2001] and you take
those away. That leaves you with a figure of just under 75,000.
To all these numbers you have to add 30% to for dependents. That
is an under-estimate, of course, because the Home Office only
count people who arrive before the first decision. Add your 30%
and you have 97,500 people who, after a legal process that costs
something like £600 million a year, were refused permission
to stay here, but they are still here. That is very nearly the
size of the British Army. That seems to me to be a very serious
situation.
59. You are saying that is the most significant
pull factor?
(Sir Andrew Green) If you have got a nine out of ten
chance of staying, it is a major pull factor.
2 Home Office Statistical Bulletin, Asylum Statistics
United Kingdom 2001, 09/02, July 2002, p 17. Back
|
