Examination of Witnesses (Questions 122
- 139)
TUESDAY 13 MAY 2003
MR PETER
GILROY, MR
MARTIN HOWE
QC AND MS
HARRIET SERGEANT
Q122 Chairman: Good morning. Welcome
to our witnesses, Mr Gilroy, Mr Howe and Ms Sergeant. This is
the second session of the short inquiry we are doing about the
reasons for the rise in asylum applications and how they are processed
and what can be done to reduce them and deal with them more effectively.
Could I start by asking each of you to introduce yourselves and
to say briefly how you became interested in the subject. That
is not difficult to guess as far as Mr Gilroy is concerned.
Mr Gilroy: My interest obviously
is that the port of Dover is in Kent. Since the mid-90s Kent County
Council has had to take a fair share of responsibility of the
people coming through the port of Dover and it is the busiest
point of entry. That is my interest.
Q123 Chairman: Yes, and large numbers
of asylum seekers started coming through.
Mr Gilroy: Very much so.
Q124 Chairman: When did they first
start coming on a large scale, would you say?
Mr Gilroy: I would say about 1997-98
but particularly 1999. Between the months of April right through
to October we had about 15,000, and in 1995-96 I think we had
about 50. It was a massive change.
Q125 Chairman: To what do you attribute
that massive sudden change in 1999?
Mr Gilroy: I think the change
was to do initially with the Balkan tensions, the Balkan problems.
We had significant numbers coming from that area. It then moved
more latterly to Afghanistan, Iraq, and we now have a combination
of nationalities. But, in volumes, those were the countries that
we originally ... Most of the asylum seekers we have dealt with
have come from countries where there has been some conflict. It
is clear that we are—still are—coping with that. There
are very significant numbers of unaccompanied minors in Kent.
We currently are looking after about 1,800; at its height it was
about 2,500. Most of those youngsters that come to us—mostly
young men—have been arranged through trafficking. Many of
them have lived in the European Union for some time once they
have got into the European Union, but, without exception, most
of them have been travelling to the UK.
Q126 Chairman: We will come back
to that later. Mr Howe?
Mr Howe: Mr Chairman, a large
amount of my legal practice is related to European Community law.
I have taken, I suppose, a broader interest in that subject and
in the European Convention on Human Rights. I want to make clear
that I do not practice in immigration law as such. I was extremely
interested, or "concerned" is probably the better word,
about the way in which our legal and judicial system appears to
be failing in a number of ways in this particular area. As you
are aware, my initial interest in the area was specifically in
relation to terrorism—and this Committee I think looked
at that issue about 18 months ago when the Terrorism Bill was
under consideration—but it does lead on to the broader question
of asylum across the board. My concern is that for the best of
reasons we have created a sort of network of legal decisions and
precedents and court procedures which have resulted in almost
a complete breakdown of the effective dealing with asylum cases.
Q127 Chairman: Have you taken part
in some of those cases?
Mr Howe: No, I do not practise
immigration law, so I am afraid it is a study from—
Q128 Chairman: It is a hobby.
Mr Howe: Slightly more than a
hobby.
Q129 David Winnick: Is it political?—I
mean, out of political interest.
Mr Howe: It is, frankly, in this
field, mainly out of my political interest, yes.
Q130 Chairman: Thank you. Ms Sergeant?
Ms Sergeant: I have lived in the
Third World for a number of years and have written three books
on it. When I came back to this country, I was asked to write
a report for the Centre for Policy Studies on immigration. I spent
a year researching this, talking to everyone I could find who
was involved in it, from asylum seekers, illegal immigrants, to
immigration officers, immigration lawyers, and also spent some
time at the Home Office in Croydon. I do not believe I have an
ideological position on this but I do think that we require an
immigration policy that is logical, well constructed and, because
immigration policy has long-term consequences, bi-partisan. The
title of my report is Welcome to the Asylum which I think
shows what I found.
Q131 Chairman: When was it written?
Ms Sergeant: It came out in September
2001.
Q132 Chairman: So it was written
during the preceding year, perhaps, is that fair?
Ms Sergeant: I wrote it the preceding
year, yes.
Q133 Chairman: Is it still up-to-date,
would you say?
Ms Sergeant: Yes, I think largely
it is still up-to-date. There are perhaps a few details that are
not, that have been changed, but mostly the underlying problems
are still there.
Chairman: Okay. Mr Prosser is going to
start the ball rolling for us.
Q134 Mr Prosser: I am directing my
first question to views from all three of you, please. We know
that many asylum seekers, economic migrants, will cross many continents,
will cross Europe, and still risk life and limb to come the extra
20 miles to gain entry to the United Kingdom. Why do you think
asylum seekers put all that effort into coming to the UK in preference
to other EU countries?
Mr Gilroy: Chairman, my observation
of this is based on operational experience only, but, talking
to my French colleagues in Calais—we have discussed this
issue—and talking to a number of asylum seekers, and my
staff talking actually to thousands, there seem to be a number
of reasons. One reason is that many have been in the European
Union for some time. We have overwhelming evidence in Kent of
youngsters speaking a number of languages—French, Italian—meaning
that they have been around a long time. They are moving around
the European Union, and that is just about trying to find work,
trying to change their circumstances—and they are quite
open about that. That is one reason. The other reason is the trafficking
issue. There is no doubt—again we have had evidence—of
traffickers picking certain countries within the Union and indicating
that those would be the countries to go to. It is quite clear,
if you look at the different ways the European Union complies
with policies in relation to asylum, we do it differently. Some
believe that the way in which we treat youngsters, for instance,
in the UK is different from the French. There is no doubt it is
different. We would be providing accommodation; the French seem
to have a much more relaxed position about accommodation than
we do. That is another reason: they seem to think that services
would be better. The third reason, of course, is that many have
what they believe to be an extended family here and they would
wish to come and find their family and make contact with them.
So it is a set of complex issues, some of it economic, some of
it to do simply with a belief. As many have said to me—only
last week youngsters were saying to me, from Iraq—"I
came here because it's a free country and I know that I'm going
to be treated fairly." They say that quite openly. So it
is a complex set of reasons as far as my experience is concerned.
Q135 Mr Prosser: Mr Gilroy, of these
asylum seekers for whom you have evidence they have moved around
the various EU countries, do you have any evidence as to their
status? Have they made claims for asylum in those other countries?
Do they have a status?
Mr Gilroy: No. No status.
Q136 Mr Prosser: Mr Howe, what is
your view?
Mr Howe: Obviously, the legal
picture is only an aspect—there are many other reasons—but
I do believe that the legal position or the legal framework does
play a part. I think one significant part of that is that the
interpretation of the Geneva Convention is not uniform in different
European countries. One specific example which I have put into
the papers you have seen is in relation to the treatment of persecution
by non-State agents, where I think the position of both France
and Germany is that they do not recognise as qualifying for asylum
under the Geneva Convention people fleeing from countries where
they are subject to persecution by non-State agents. They treat
it as State agents only. If you happen to be from one of those
countries and you are clued up enough to know that our courts
interpret it differently and do extend the Convention to cover
persecution by non-State agents, that obviously—
Q137 Mr Cameron: To clarify, non-State
agents are family feuds, Mafia.
Mr Howe: Yes. I am sorry to jargonise.
That of course means it is a magnet for those who are clued up
on that issue to come to this country rather than France and Germany.
I think there is a broader issue also: I think procedurally we
are more generous in terms of allowing more appeals, more applications
for judicial review, etcetera, etcetera, which allow the process
to be spun out, sometimes not meritoriously, if I may put it that
way.
Q138 Mr Prosser: On that latter point,
are you encouraged by the changes which have taken place in the
2002 Asylum Act, which has reduced the number of appeals?
Mr Howe: Yes. I mean, I think,
in a sense, that is part of what needs to be done, but it is not
the whole story. The problem is that the more you reduce statutory
appeals, the more opportunity there is then to go round to the
administrative court and apply for judicial review, because there
is the blanket jurisdiction of the High Court, even in cases where
there is no statutory appeal within the tribunal system, to review
cases. I think on that front, unless one is being completely radical
and cutting down judicial review rights, there may well be administrative
improvements that could be made in the courts system, such as
making sure the same applicant's cases always go back as far as
possible to be dealt with by the same judge, so you do not get
this renewal of applications again and again on different grounds
or slightly different grounds hoping to hit a more sympathetic
judge.
Q139 Mr Prosser: On the issue of
the different interpretations of the Convention, ideally and almost
by their nature applications should be equally interpreted and
processed. Why do you think that difference exists? How could
we possibly bring them into line? Is there a mechanism?
Mr Howe: This raises a very important
issue. I do not think it is mentioned in the Home Office evidence
which is before you. That is, there is currently a European Union
draft directive under consideration which would harmonise standards
of the interpretation of the Refugee Convention. It is a first
pillar matter and therefore under the Amsterdam protocol this
country does have the right not to participate in it but my understanding
of the position is that the British Government is at present opted
into that draft directive. I think there is some prospect of agreement
being reached on it in June but, like all these things, they go
off. That would have the effect of requiring each Member State
to adopt a harmonised definition of refugees. It would also have
the effect, if adopted in its present form, of entrenching Article
3 of the European Convention on Human Rights' position into European
Union law. Whatever the merits of harmonisation as such on the
question of making one country more attractive or less attractive
than others, the adoption of that directive would Communitise
that aspect of our law and would open up further appeal channels
to the European Court from our own courts and would, indeed, allow
Acts of Parliament to be overturned if they are held by the courts
to conflict with those provisions. At the moment, under the European
Convention on Human Rights, all they can do is interpret and make
declarations of incompatibility, but, if that comes in, of course,
under Community law they would be able to overturn them. I think
one important issue is whether it is appropriate for the British
Government to maintain what I understand to be its current position
of opting into this measure.
| 
