Select Committee on Home Affairs Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence


APPENDIX 26

Memorandum submitted by the Mayor of London Ken Livingstone

INTRODUCTION

  1.  London's integration into the world economy, crucial to the growth of the UK, depends on mobility not only of capital but also of people. In 2000-01, the Greater London Authority (GLA) estimates 26% of London residents were born outside the UK and 22% in non-EU15 states. Available data suggest that London remains home to a majority of UK asylum seekers. This is a city built on immigration—illegal as well as legal, whether driven by political persecution, social ties or economic need.

  2.  The Mayor of London Ken Livingstone therefore welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence on an issue which is germane to his work to promote social and economic development, equalities and community safety in London. The following statement focuses on three issues: scale of asylum and immigration removals, methods of removal, and incentives for voluntary return.

  3.  To put these issues into context, the Mayor asks the Committee to consider first the following more general remarks.

GENERAL POINTS

LACK OF INFORMATION:

  4.  No agency—including the Home Office—yet has any objective data about the overall size, make-up, social role and economic activity of the immigrant population deemed to be illegally resident in London (or the UK). The Government would be wise to move cautiously in framing policy towards a group about which it is almost wholly ignorant.

NUMBER OF IRREGULAR IMMIGRANTS IN LONDON:

  5.  The few available clues about possible irregular immigration suggest the number of London residents in the target group for removals must be large—possibly in six figures. For London any systematic attempt to return large numbers of rejected asylum seekers or other illegal residents would not be low-profile action in a few neighbourhoods, but a major social intervention that could affect many ethnic minority communities.

BROADER POLICY CONTEXT:

  6.  The removals process has to be seen not just as a narrow technical operation, but in its social and policy context. For example, the social repercussions of large-scale removals could be more serious if accompanied by powers like those in the present Nationality Immigration and Asylum Bill, to

    —  detain more asylum seekers, formally or de facto in accommodation centres, possibly leading to higher absconding rates;

    —  raid workplaces to enforce rules on illegal employment;

    —  oblige local authorities to act as Home Office intelligence agents;

    —  impose severe jail sentences on those "harbouring" immigration offenders.

SCALE OF REMOVALS

  7.  Repeatedly during 2001 and 2002 the Mayor voiced concerns to the Home Secretary about the Government's target of removing 30,000 failed asylum seekers per annum, and its possible implications for community relations in London. In September 2001 the Metropolitan Police Commissioner said it was "likely to generate community tension and possibly a requirement for public order maintenance". The Mayor was glad to hear the Home Secretary, in his statement to your Committee on 18 September, abandon this dangerous target.

  8.  The Mayor hopes any new decision about the scale of removals operations will be based on full consultation with community and public sector stakeholders including authorities—like the GLA—with strategic responsibility for social development in the areas concerned. It should take into account not just the question of technical capacity referred to by the Home Secretary in his statement to you, but also:

    —  growing risk of error and injustice as the volume of removals rises;

    —  their impact on local communities;

    —  the need to give priority to voluntary returns (see below).

VOLUNTARY RETURNS: THE ROLE OF TRAINING

  9.  The Mayor strongly believes that priority must be given to voluntary returns if the return process is to be humane, viable and stable.

  10.  Training here in the UK could, he believes, play a valuable part in ensuring that voluntary return works—by making it a worthwhile choice for the irregular immigrant. Since its benefits would be taken back to countries of origin, it could also help build a co-operative relationship with them on readmission of irregular migrants. The Mayor notes evidence that vocational training for returnees has underpinned return projects in a number of other EU states.

  11.  A clear and imaginative policy framework will be required if this wider perspective on training is to be put into practice:

    —  some training agencies may have to re-orient their work;

    —  changes may be needed to rules on access to training for asylum seekers;

    —  new packages of funding for training might be called for (perhaps including international development funds); and

    —  greater input from EU funds will certainly be required.

FORCED RETURNS: IMPACT ON COMMUNITY RELATIONS

  12.  Immigration and asylum of course have to be subject to the law. But enforcement measures must be informed by an understanding of how they will affect individuals and social relations in a culturally diverse city.

  13.  Across Europe, attempts to remove irregular immigrants by force have been marked by a series of deaths in custody. Last November, a young man fell to his death after reacting in fear to the arrival of HM Immigration Service at a property in South London. The GLA has heard testimony about the real fear among asylum seekers already generated by HMIS operations in East London.

  14.  The Mayor believes any strategy for forced return of rejected asylum seekers and other illegal residents must allow for proper oversight by representatives accountable to local communities, and for advice and feedback from them.

  15.  He would urge that removals operations be subject in future to the following safeguards:

    —  advisory body of stakeholders independent of the agencies responsible for enforcement;

    —  regular consultation with communities most affected by such operations;

    —  mechanisms for regular monitoring and public scrutiny by elected representatives of the communities concerned;

    —  statutory requirement that HMIS arrest operations conform to PACE codes of practice applicable to the police service (Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 as amended);

    —  transparent and accountable complaints procedure; and

    —  an independent process of appeal.

October 2002


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2003
Prepared 7 May 2003