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
| 
