Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1
- 19)
THURSDAY 8 MAY 2003
BEVERLEY HUGHES
MP, MR BILL
JEFFREY AND
MR KEN
SUTTON
Chairman: Minister, Mr Jeffrey, Mr Sutton,
all familiar faces; welcome. As you know, this is the beginning
of the second part of our inquiry into asylum. We have published
today a report on Asylum Removals, and now we are going
to the opposite end of the chain. We are doing it, one could argue,
the wrong way round, but we are doing it that way anyway, moving
to look now at the processing of applications. Before we do, and
I appreciate this is, to some extent, bolting the door after the
horse has departed, can I express disappointment at the mischievous
nature of much of the press coverage of the report published this
morning. It is absolutely clear, from much of what has been said,
that those commenting and questioning have not read beyond the
first paragraph, and anybody who has will see that it is a fairly
calm and balanced, we believe, account of the removals process,
and it emphasises throughout that it is a complex issue that does
not admit of simple solutions; and, actually, there is very little
criticism of the Government's policy, beyond some strong words
about targets. And I am just disappointed that it is not possible
to discuss this issue in a mature way, and I hope it will be in
the future. That is all I intend to say on the subject, but, since
we have some of those responsible for the reporting present, I
thought I would get that on the record. Right; to start the ball
rolling, with some questions, first of all, about the reasons
for the rise in the number of asylum applications, Mr Prosser.
Q1 Mr Prosser: Good morning, Minister.
Can you tell us your estimate of the proportion of asylum seekers
who are economic migrants, rather than genuine refugees fleeing
persecution, currently; and is the proportion increasing or decreasing?
Beverley Hughes: First of all,
could I just echo your comments on the previous report, Chair.
I welcome that report very much, and indeed I welcome this part
of the inquiry as well, which I have no doubt will be conducted
by the members of the Committee in the same way as that which
led to the report you have just published. You will be aware,
Mr Prosser, that about 10% of asylum claims at the moment are
accepted at first decision, some go on to be accepted at appeal.
We have had use of exceptional leave to remain, which we are changing,
which has added about between 20, 22% to those figures. So I think
we can say, broadly, that, at the moment, and I think this figure
will fall with the use of humanitarian protection instead of ELR,
at least two-thirds of the figures coming in hitherto are people
who have been refused asylum, for one reason or another, and I
think for many, if not most, of those the reasons will be that
actually they have claimed asylum for economic reasons rather
than being shown to be fleeing persecution, or being in fear of
their lives, in some other part of the world.
Q2 Mr Prosser: Does the Government
have a view on what would be an acceptable level of economic inward
migration?
Beverley Hughes: No; we are not
setting a target for economic migration. As you will know, we
have already opened up legal and legitimate routes in for highly-skilled
migrants, for seasonal workers, for students on working holidays,
and I announced the start of two programmes for lower-skilled
people, which will be due to start shortly. Now each of those
individual programmes may have a target, but the overall extent
to which we want to see migration into this country to assist
with our economy is a decision based on the labour market at that
time, both generally and in relation to individual sectors of
the economy, and I think that is a sensible way forward; it is
in relation to our economic need, not setting an overall ceiling
for a period of time.
Q3 Mr Prosser: There is very clear
evidence that asylum seekers come across many countries, come
right across the European Union, and then risk life and limb,
literally, to cross the Channel and come into the United Kingdom.
Why is the UK such an attractive destination for asylum seekers?
Beverley Hughes: I think, the
extent to which it is regarded as an attractive destination, in
order to make that judgment, I think you have to look at three
sets of issues. You have to look at the general trends. I think
you have got to look at what we know, and the evidence is unclear,
about motivational factors. And then, thirdly, I think you have
to look at whether there are issues that are particular to the
UK. On general trends, you will have seen that the actual patterns
of relativities, the UK vis-a"-vis the other European
countries, have changed over the last ten years; there have been
periods of time, 1993-95 in particular, when the overall trend
in Europe was going down, but the numbers in Britain relatively
were going up. But certainly for the last few years we have seen
a trend in which the overall numbers in Europe, and indeed in
some individual countries, including the UK, are rising; so although
we are rising now it is in the context of a general trend across
Europe of an increase in numbers. I think, on motivational factors,
the evidence, as you will probably have seen from some of the
submissions from various groups, is unclear, and different people,
therefore, from different points of view, put forward their own
views. Certainly, there are some push factors, and I think the
research evidence does suggest that where there is conflict and
repression, as opposed to only, if you like, disadvantage and
poverty, then that is something that pushes people out and starts
some of these big migration flows that we have seen. There are
clearly some general pull factors that apply to countries in Western
Europe as a whole; the extent to which there are family members
or community members already in host countries, I think, is a
factor. The extent to which it is easier to gain work and employment
is clearly a factor when people are moving for economic reasons.
Peace and democracy, and the perceptions of countries. And also,
I think, once a migratory route has started, the extent to which
that becomes consolidated by the criminal gangs who are basically
touting their service in source countries. So all those pull factors
apply to, I think, Western European countries in general, including
the UK. I think there are some specifics for the UK, and I would
say that, and the evidence for this is not unequivocal but it
is my view, language is an important pull factor for the UK, as
is the particular perceptions of the UK in other countries. I
think, certainly, the extent to which we used ELR and the trend
of increase in the use of ELR was also a factor. And I think also
that the backlog that grew and reached a peak in January 2000,
as a result of factors that no doubt we will discuss with the
Committee, and the inability of the organisation to cope with
that backlog quickly, was of itself a pull factor; and the reason
I say that is not just my own view. I think there is some interesting
speculation in some of the research that, once you get a migratory
flow starting, whatever the push factor for that in the first
instance, then, for some of the reasons I identified, because
criminal gangs set up routes, because it starts, I think, almost
a capillary effect, if I can call it that, that flow continues
after the push factors actually have started to subside. And I
think we have seen that with Afghanistan, with Kosovo, in which
we still were getting substantial numbers of people claiming asylum
from those areas after the factors that pushed them out of those
countries, if you like, had subsided. And so I think the backlog,
and the lack of administrative capacity at that time in not stemming
that flow, was also a factor.
Q4 Mr Prosser: One of the reasons
for the backlog building up, of course, is the long period of
processing, and there has been some criticism about that. How
does our means and speed of processing compare with that of other
EU countries?
Beverley Hughes: If I may say
so, I think the connection between those two factors is the other
way round. I think the long period of processing was a result
of the fact that we ended up with a very large backlog; and the
reasons that we ended up with a very large backlog were partly
to do with the fact that the computer system that was supposed
to come on line in 1998-99 failed to be delivered, and a large
number of caseworkers were allowed to leave, on the back of the
expectation of that computer system by the previous Government.
So we had a time in 1998-99 when the computer was not there, about
1,200 experienced caseworkers had disappeared from the system,
so the capacity of the organisation to do the work was very severely
reduced, and, at the same time, these very large migratory flows,
particularly from Kosovo, started and came. And the collision
of those internal and external factors led to the backlog, and
it is actually the backlog that has led to the long delays in
the system, I think, and exacerbated that situation.
Q5 Mr Prosser: But, looking at the
current situation, how does our speed of processing compare with
the other European Union countries?
Beverley Hughes: It is quite difficult
to compare, because all of the European countries have initially
different ways of logging cases into the system; for instance,
if you take France, when they produce their asylum statistics,
as I understand it, France have a very early sift, in which they
take out of the asylum statistics those cases that they do not
think are going to meet the Convention threshold, but which may
get humanitarian leave to remain on some other grounds. So when
you see France's figures, of whatever it is now, 58,000, actually
that is not the total number of people who claim asylum; and we
think, if they included everybody who claimed asylum, including
those they weed out at a very early stage, their numbers would
be similar to ours. So there are differences right from the word
go, in terms of how the cases are defined and logged, and the
processes that then they are subjected to. I think, in terms of
some of the quickest practice in different European countries,
I noted that some of the groups that have written to you have
quoted The Netherlands as having, say, a 48-hour turnaround, quoted
by one organisation as dealing with it in two days. As I understand
it, that is not the case; they select out cases they think they
can deal with in 48 working hours, but that 48 working hours actually
is spread over ten days. Now our fast-tracking systems, the non-suspensive
appeal system at Oakington and the Harmondsworth fast-track system,
particularly Oakington, but I think eventually Harmondsworth,
will be approaching those kinds of turnarounds. In terms of initial
decisions, we have moved from an average of 22 months, in 1996-97,
to an average of five months now, with 76% of those cases in the
first six months of the last financial year being dealt with within
the two-month target.
Q6 Mr Prosser: Returning again to
the pull factor, the attraction factor, I have talked to asylum
seekers in Dover who have said that one of the attractions is
that, if they come to the UK, (a) they have got a good chance
of gaining asylum, and, if they have got a case, that is fine,
but (b) if they fail then it is very easy to disappear into the
background, into the black economy, because there is no identity
card system. How significant would be the introduction of ID cards
for all British citizens to reducing the pull factor, the attraction,
to asylum seekers?
Beverley Hughes: Of course, this
is something that the Government is going to make a decision on,
on whether to go forward on. There has been a big consultation
on the question of ID cards for all British citizens, as you know.
I think that would make a significant difference, in the sense
that it is the only thing really that can help us to be rigorous
about controlling illegal working, and, as you are implying, it
is a potential to work illegally that I think is one of the attractions.
Having said that, we have not waited for that big decision, we
do actually have now, basically, ID cards with a very high degree
of security, and containing a fingerprint data, for all new asylum
seekers. And, as well as all new asylum seekers having been issued
with the application registration card, as it is called, the ARC
card, we have just about worked through now all of the people
who were here already and on NASS support, and we are looking
to work through the population on local authority support. So
over the last two years we have instituted a system in which we
are issuing ID cards to new people, we have gone a long way to
issuing them to those already here, and that is part of our approach
for much more stringent contact management throughout the process,
so that when a claim fails we know where people are, and we have
kept in contact with them through that system, and then more effectively
can remove them.
Q7 Mr Prosser: MigrationWatch UK
have suggested that the almost routine, automatic granting of
exceptional leave to remain, in the past anyway, to people coming
from Afghanistan and Somalia, resulted in a significant increase
in those flows. What is your view; is that the case, and how did
that all come about?
Beverley Hughes: I think I have
really just said, in a general way, I do accept that, because
I think probably it is the case that once a migratory flow starts,
for whatever, in a sense, understandable reason in the country
of origin, conflict, or repression, that actually becomes a flow
that persists after those conditions start to change. I think
the extent to which that occurred here, in relation to the UK
as a destination, probably was exacerbated by the two factors
I have already identified, by particularly the very generous granting
of exceptional leave to remain when an asylum claim was felt not
to be met, but also the lack of capacity in the system to deal
quickly with cases, and so that people actually were here for
a long time while their claim was being processed. I think both
of those factors made it such that there was no pressure bearing
down on that flow of people.
Q8 Chairman: Just one point on comparisons
with other countries, Minister. Looking at the figures, I see
that in Britain since 1990 the number of asylum seekers has more
or less trebled; in Germany the number seems to have gone down
over the same period by two-thirds. How do we account for the
difference; it may have something to do with East European refugees,
from Bosnia and Croatia, and the like, I do not know, but how
do you account for that difference?
Beverley Hughes: I will bring
in Bill Jeffrey in a moment, but Germany faced a very high number,
of over 400,000, I think, in the early nineties, 1992, I think,
my table starts at 1993, but I think earlier than that it was
even higher than my figure here.
Q9 Chairman: That is correct, 438,000
in 1992.
Beverley Hughes: Yes. Germany
started there, and obviously that was partly as a consequence
of the Berlin Wall falling and the events around, as you say,
Eastern Germany and Eastern Europe more generally, and the location
of Germany too in relation to those people, very easy for people
to get there; and probably also, because I think this is another
factor, the relative position of the German economy at that time
too. I think both of those factors have shifted, and, certainly,
more recently, Germany, for economic migrants, is not so attractive;
obviously, Germany is in an economic downturn, we have got a very,
very buoyant economy, so by comparison economically we are very
attractive. But also it has to be said that, in response to its
situation, I think Germany took action earlier in the nineties,
because it was facing those very high numbers, in terms of getting
on top of its asylum system, and we see, in part, the effect of
that coming through in the figures. But I think the economic factors
and the locational factors are also significant in explaining
that reverse trend. Bill, do you want to comment.
Mr Jeffrey: I have nothing significant
to add, Chairman. It is quite clear that these very large figures
in the early nineties were a consequence of the falling of the
Iron Curtain, and mostly related to people from Eastern European
countries.
Q10 Chairman: If you take the figures
for, say, France, where the same arguments obviously do not apply,
over the same period, 1990-2002, their numbers have remained fairly
stable; now that is not quite true, they went down and then they
went up again, and they are back more or less where they were
at the beginning. But it is not the same trend as we have experienced
here, where we have had a tripling, and, as I say, over the same
period, France had 54,000 in 1990 and 51,000 last year?
Beverley Hughes: Yes, I agree,
and, subject to the caveat that I raised earlier about how comparable
particularly the French figure is with ours, that does exclude
a lot of people given permission to stay there, but not under
Convention reasons, where we include absolutely everybody who
claims in our statistics. We think that figure actually would
come much closer if not more or less the same as ours if they
included everybody in the asylum statistics who was actually given
permission to stay there. But, yes, there are different relativities,
and those relativities, as you outlined, have actually changed
over time; there are a number of other countries, lower in terms
of numbers, but actually in terms of percentage increases, Ireland,
Austria, Norway, amongst others, who have also seen a significant
increase in the position they started from, and others have gone
down. I think that is in the nature of this phenomenon; we talk
about numbers, actually we are talking here about human behaviour,
both of people who want to migrate and of the people traffickers
who sell routes to people. And it is the summation of those decisions,
actually, that result in the final figures we see in any one year,
and the way they change over time.
Mr Jeffrey: If I could add just
one point, Chairman. In my personal view, it is hard to underestimate
the economic dimension of this, because, to pick up Mr Prosser's
question from the beginning, the distinction between genuine refugees
and economic migrants is not as clear-cut as all that. Many genuine
refugees exercise a choice about where to claim asylum. And if
you look, as the Minister has done, at the countries that have
seen the sharpest increases in numbers in recent years, they include,
for example, Ireland, which has been going through an economic
boom and evidently is very attractive.
Chairman: I see. Thank you.
Q11 Miss Widdecombe: Can I just try
to get underneath some of the answers you have given, Minister.
Do you believe generally we are seen as a soft touch in this country?
Beverley Hughes: I do not think
that we are seen as a soft touch in the sense that some commentators
imply, and by that I mean that we have got across the board a
lot more generous support and benefit systems, that we treat people
luxuriously better when they are here claiming asylum than other
countries do. In fact, the comparisons on those kinds of factors
do not present a clear picture at all, the systems in different
countries are quite different. Greece, for example, allows people
to work, they do not give people any support but they actually
allow people to work quite freely; we have got a different set
of parameters. But in the sense that, in terms of the factors
that I have identified, the use of ELR, the existence of the backlog
and the delays that occurred there, and actually, at the moment,
the economy and the language, I think people have not picked up
on that, and I think the language is a pull factor, then I do
not think we are a soft touch, but I think that we have particular
aspects in the UK that are attractive to people.
Q12 Miss Widdecombe: You have answered
my soft touch question in terms of benefits, but there is another
way, is there not, in which we are perceived as a soft touch,
and the message surely is this; all you have to do to get into
Britain is to utter three words, "I claim asylum"? You
must then be admitted while your claim is processed. The soft
touch element surely comes into play inasmuch as once you are
in the country, in general, it is then very easy to disappear,
and the likelihood of being removed is comparatively low. Is not
that where we are seen as a soft touch, that once you are in probably
you can stay?
Beverley Hughes: I think, in order
to say that we were a soft touch on those kinds of dimensions,
you would have to be able to say that the situation is qualitatively
and quantitatively different for asylum seekers in the UK than
it is in other European countries, in other words, there is a
differential in relation to those factors which makes people say,
"Yeah, get to Britain and we're alright." I do not think
actually that is true. If you look at the asylum systems of other
countries, and, as I say, it is hard to make comparisons, but
there are many countries that tolerate very high numbers of people
who enter illegally and stay illegally, who do not even bother
to count them, do not attempt to put them in their statistics.
There are many other countries that are not dealing any more quickly,
or indeed removing any more people; actually we are removing,
I think, more people at the moment than most other European countries.
So you may feel that about our system, but, looking at it evidentially,
in terms of looking for a differential between us and other countries
on those dimensions, I do not think that is supported.
Q13 Miss Widdecombe: So your view,
as Minister, is that people do not say, to use your words, "Once
you get into Britain, you'll be alright"?
Beverley Hughes: Now you asked
me whether Britain is a soft touch.
Q14 Miss Widdecombe: Whether we are
perceived as a soft touch?
Beverley Hughes: I thought you
asked me if Britain is a soft touch. If the perception is that
Britain is a soft touch then that is a different issue; there
may be a perception. I do not think that is borne out in reality,
in terms of the systems, but that perception is something that
could be created not just by people's experience but actually
by what is said about our system in the media and elsewhere. And
the impression that we are a soft touch is a corrosive message,
I think, that has been put out, I do not think the reality supports
that, but I agree with you that that is something some people
say, as you are now.
Q15 Miss Widdecombe: Indeed, I am
now. Can I ask you one last question on this, before I try the
Chairman's patience, which is this. If you are an asylum seeker,
formerly in Sangatte but now in the environs of Sangatte, you
are in a safe country, you are under the rule of law, and you
do not speak English, but nevertheless you decide to risk, as
Mr Prosser said, literally, sometimes, life and limb, trying to
get from that safe country, France, to this country, Britain.
What is that driving factor that makes it worth taking those risks,
if it is not that you think that once you get here you will be
alright?
Beverley Hughes: The evidence
on that, leaving aside stories and impressions, is not clear;
the little research that has been done, and it is a little at
the moment, although we are doing more, on what people say about
what motivates them, is inconclusive. Certainly, the language
does seem to be a factor, because although some people do not
speak English many people feel they speak more English, understand
more English, than they understand French or German or Italian.
There is certainly a perception about Britain, which is not so
much a soft touch impression, it is about Britain as a welcoming,
tolerant country. Thirdly, the presence of people already here,
either from people's own families or their communities to which
they can connect, is reported to be a significant factor. And
actually some of the research has said that many people do not
actually know where they are going when they get into the back
of a lorry, but destination for some people is not an issue that
is determined by them.
Q16 Miss Widdecombe: I was very specific.
The people at Sangatte know jolly well where they are trying to
go. I was very specific on that.
Beverley Hughes: What the research
tells us is that those three factors are uppermost in people's
minds. But, you are right, the research evidence on this is very
limited, it is inconclusive.
Chairman: Now we will turn to the backlog.
Mr Singh.
Q17 Mr Singh: Minister, you did talk
a little bit about the backlog earlier, in response to Mr Prosser.
Now the backlog of people waiting for an initial decision increased
from 54,000 applicants in April 1997 to 121,000 in January 2000;
and you said the backlog increased because "we laid off 1,200
caseworkers and put our faith in an IT system." Now that
was not just carelessness, in my view, that was a catastrophic
misjudgment. Who was responsible for that misjudgment and what
happened to them?
Beverley Hughes: As I understand
it, it was in 1996 that the Government at that time entered into
a contract to computerise the caseworking function of the whole
of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, and it was called
the IND Casework Programme. And the concept was to move towards
a paperless office, which would not need nearly so many decision-makers,
on the strength of a computer system throughout IND that would
deal with that work; and that contract was issued in 1996-97,
and was meant to be delivered, I am not sure of the date for delivery,
I think it was, around 1998. Now, in fact, that system failed
and that contract was never honoured, that computer system was
never put in place, and that whole episode has been examined by
the Public Accounts Committee and is a matter of public record,
so I will not go into it here. But, in terms of the setting of
the budgets and the staffing of IND, the decision was, as I say,
to relinquish, and it happened to be experienced caseworkers who
were run down, and the numbers, as I understood, as I said, were
reduced by between 1,000 and 1,200. You can appreciate, I think,
that during that period of time, from 1997, 1998, 1999, and I
was not there so I am speculating here, you will understand, the
computer was meant to be coming, we had the budget that was set,
the staff was being reduced, but the computer never arrived. And,
in a sense, at the same time as it was clear that this was not
going to work, the inflow from Kosovo started. And, as I understand
it, those are the dynamics that led to the complete incapacity
of the organisation at that time then to deal with what was a
massive and sudden inflow of applications primarily from the Kosovan
crisis.
Q18 Mr Singh: Given that was happening,
did not the Government see fit to take any emergency measures
to stem that tide, a tide which has now led to the British National
Party being the second largest party on the Council in Burnley?
Beverley Hughes: I think action
was taken to try to manage that system; there were great efforts
made to relieve the pressure on London, with the dispersal system,
of large numbers of people coming in. I was not there, but what
I feel about that is, looking back, I think it must have been
like trying to turn round a supertanker with a ship that was actually
sinking, if you see what I mean, because the capacity was not
there. It is very difficult, when you have got rid of 1,000 experienced
caseworkers, suddenly to bring people on who make those kinds
of decisions, at the same time as very, very large increases in
numbers of applications, as the figures show, were occurring.
Q19 Mr Singh: Has the Government
mishandled the whole asylum issue?
Beverley Hughes: I do not think
so at all. I think the initial phase was to relieve the pressure
on London, to deal with some of the problems in the system that
contributed to the delays, like the fact that people could put
successive appeals, spread over many years. So the early legislation
was about creating order in those elements of the system, going
to one-stop appeals, dispersing people round the country. And
the second phase that this Home Secretary has brought in is to
bring in now radical changes to the whole of those systems, to
reduce the intake, deal with the backlog, increase removals and
speed up dramatically the speed with which we process applications,
in a way, dealing with the administrative issues in this system.
There are much bigger issues out there which we are also trying
to deal with, but those are the administrative issues, which I
think you are concerned about.
|
