Examination of Witnesses (Questions 140
- 159)
TUESDAY 13 MAY 2003
MR PETER
GILROY, MR
MARTIN HOWE
QC AND MS
HARRIET SERGEANT
Q140 Mr Prosser: What is your view?
Mr Howe: I would say no, because
I would think the downside of doing that is very much greater
than the upside.[1]
On the issue of persecution by non-State agents, for example,
the harmonised position would be that the protection of the Convention
would extend to them. I mean, if you like, the argument in favour
of that is that would force France and Germany to take people
who at present may be heading for this country in preference,
but the expense of doing that would be to make the whole European
Union more attractive as a destination for asylum seekers.
Q141 Mr Prosser: Rather than just
the United Kingdom.
Mr Howe: Rather than just the
United Kingdom.
Mr Gilroy: May I add to that,
because I am intrigued by that hypothesis. If you accept that
most of the people who we are getting at the moment are attracted
already to the European Union as a block—which is pretty
wealthy, relatively—I am not sure that, whatever happens,
they are still going to be attracted to the European Union as
a whole, simply because they are attracted by all sorts of benefits
and employment and things that they see they want. I suppose,
from my point of view, as an operational person who is trying
to manage this process, I have become very fractious and sometimes
frustrated to talk to my colleagues. I went down to Brindisi,
to see how the Italians were coping at the port when people were
coming across from Albania. I assumed I would see a quite sophisticated
process of assessment but I did not. When I asked, "What
happens now to these people?" they said, "Well, they
are going back to Albania." I said, "When?" "Now,"
they said. I asked, "When? Do you mean now? This minute?"
"Oh, yes." I thought: "What about appeals?"
Yes. They were back, and they even had the Italian police at the
Albanian side. I came back to the UK thinking, "That's interesting.
You couldn't do that in Dover." If we did, we would have
everybody saying that this is not the way to protect both asylum
seekers and those seeking sustenance when they believe they are
at risk. I am frustrated, I am fractious about this because I
think that, unless we get some sense within the European Union,
these things will always continue. I agree that the law is confused
at the moment, but I am not convinced that not signing up will
make it worse.
Q142 Mr Prosser: Ms Sergeant, can
I ask you what you think are the attractions, the pull factors,
which encourage people to come from other European countries?
Ms Sergeant: I think you have
to look at who exactly is coming here. 75% of asylum seekers are
young men and these young men have all paid criminal gangs between
£10,000, £15,000, £20,000 to get here, so obviously
they are not coming here for, whatever it is, £35 a week,
because that is not going to pay off their debt. The reason they
are coming here is because we have a thriving black economy in
this country. Not only do we have a thriving black economy but
it is also very easy to work illegally in this country because
we do not have identity cards. We think of the black economy,
I think, as a fly-by-night thing on the periphery of the economy
but that is no longer the case. Most large companies, for example,
would not consider using illegal labour but they will use a contractor—and
now more and more companies are outsourcing and using contractors—and
these contractors do use illegal labour. I interviewed a man from
the Inland Revenue whose job it is to investigate companies. He
said, "As a tax inspector whose job it is to investigate
companies, I can tell you that people are finding ways round this
all the time." He said, "In certain sectors, it is now
pervasive" and he mentioned the construction industry, fruit
growers, catering, fashion and cleaning companies as the worst
examples. While there is no check on this, we are not going to
be able to stop these young men from coming.
Q143 Mr Prosser: How effective do
you think identity cards for all UK citizens would be in limiting
the black market?
Ms Sergeant: I think it would
be very effective. The simple reason is that the asylum seekers
find it very difficult to work in other European countries whereas
they do find it easy to work here and that is why they come here.
I think it would be certainly worth trying.
Q144 Mr Prosser: Do you have any
other ideas for tackling what you call this "black hole",
where people disappear into the black economy. Do you have any
other ideas or suggestions which this Government might take up?
Ms Sergeant: This probably will
relate to other questions but I think our whole asylum system
is fundamentally flawed and this division between asylum seeker
and economic migrant is an artificial division. I think we should
scrap that and have a quota system, which I think would be far
fairer. At the moment we are simply taking the people who have
the money to pay the criminal gangs to get here. If you are poor,
you stay behind in the country. If you are elderly/women/children
you stay behind in the refugee camps, you do not get a chance
to come to this country. It is fundamentally a very unfair system.
I think that a quota system, coupled with identity cards, would
be a lot fairer and possibly more easy to manage and cheaper.
Q145 Mr Prosser: Mr Gilroy, I want
to turn to the specifics now of Kent and Dover. Can you tell me
how many asylum seekers or do you have a feel for how many asylum
seekers are currently entering through Dover and other ports in
Kent? Do you have a feel for the trend, if not the numbers?
Mr Gilroy: The trend, in the last
few weeks, is down. I think that is significant—and it is
probably predictable, to some extent, looking at the international
issues that are going on. That is an important significant shift
because up until the last few weeks the trend had been gradually
up each year. We normally get 100 to 150 youngsters coming through
the port every four weeks that we have to look after. That has
dropped, certainly for the last four weeks. We are down now to
about 50, 60, so it is definitely a downward trend. My colleagues
in immigration tell me that has been a downward trend across the
piece in the last few weeks. From Kent's point of view, I am still
looking after nearly 3,000 who actually should have had decisions
made about them a long time ago. It is an irony that we still
have that group now who have lived in Kent all that time and still
have not had decisions made, because I am not sure what the Government
is going to do when these decisions are made. If you have been
living here for three or four years, there is a moment when, in
removing someone—particularly when you just get a letter
in English saying that you have not had your appeal upheld—it
really does not matter to you very much, you are not going to
move. I think we are going to have some serious issues with that
population living in Kent. But, overall, at the moment the trend
is significantly down.
Q146 Mr Prosser: Can you estimate
the proportion of people coming in at the moment who are genuinely
fleeing from persecution as opposed to economic migrants? Do you
have a feel for that number?
Mr Gilroy: I, like most of my
colleagues, have thought about this issue a lot over the last
few years. It tends to be polarised but, in truth, in real life
it is not polarised, it is more complex than that. You can say
that people are coming from countries where there are threats,
but, as Harriet said just now, the issue is around how they get
here and how their families arrange for them to get here. That,
to me, is very significant. That issue is about being an economic
migrant. I would say, on average, in Kent certainly, our view
would be that for round about 50% broadly you could easily say,
"Well, these people are here because they are looking for
a better life, they want jobs." They would normally be part
of immigration, they would be saying they were coming here for
work purposes. In the United States, they would be looking for
a green card actually to look for work.
Q147 Chairman: Would you speak up,
please.
Mr Gilroy: I am sorry. I am saying
that in terms of why they come here and the proportion that are
economic migrants or the proportion that are genuine asylum seekers
is complex. It is not a black and white issue. Having said that,
our experience in Kent would suggest that significant numbers,
certainly up to 50%, would be in the category of coming here because
they are trying to seek work and to make a better life for themselves.
Q148 Mr Prosser: You have said that
the trend is downwards and that was confirmed by the Minister
when she spoke to the Committee recently. She said there was a
dramatic increase in the numbers. To what degree do you think
that is influenced by elements such as the closure of Sangatte
and sites and the elements of the 2002 Act which, for instance,
designates 17 countries for which there is an unfound case for
asylum and they are returned almost immediately.
Mr Gilroy: I think they are all
significant indicators, Sangatte and the new legislation. I would
also add that the issues in Iraq that have taken place have also
destabilised, to some extent—listening to some of our people—some
of the trafficking that has been going on in recent years. All
of that has had an effect too. Probably there has been a public
message. I do think that has had an effect, because one or two
have said, "Well, of course the message now is that the UK
is not as easy a place now as it used to be." I think all
these things are having an impact.
Q149 Mr Prosser: How successful or
otherwise has the dispersal system been for Kent in particular?
Mr Gilroy: I think this has been
a very, very difficult area, to be honest. For both NASS and Kent
ourselves, to take people from Kent in large numbers, whether
it be through the immigration service or through our own services,
and parachute them into local authorities around the country,
has created some quite serious problems. First of all, it adds
to the sense of perception to the public that they are being flooded
with people. In truth, there are significant numbers, but if you
concentrate people in certain locations then the public perception
very quickly is affected by that.
Q150 Mr Prosser: But the impact on
Kent and Dover.
Mr Gilroy: It has been very significant
indeed. We have had populations in Kent that have had no ethnic
tradition at all and over the last six years we have had to place
thousands of people overall into those areas. It has had a dramatic
effect on public confidence, public perception. It is not actually
a racial issue, it is a reality issue that people do feel intimidated
when large new communities suddenly appear in significant numbers.
I think London—which has had the most of course—is
multi-ethnic. It is one of the largest cities in the world, it
can absorb, it tends to absorb. We get communities in Kent along
that coastal strip—and remember that that is the poorest
part of Kent—so we ended up using accommodation, because
of money, because it was cheaper, and you end up with other problems
emerging simply because of the policies. So it has not been an
easy time for us in Kent over the last five years.
Q151 Chairman: You mentioned that
50% had come for economic reasons. What about the other 50%?
Mr Gilroy: I was saying it is
difficult because every time we have discussed this nationally
we seem to get into sound bites either at one end of the spectrum
or the other. The more you are into the subject, you realise it
is more complicated than that. For instance, the Afghan boys we
have dealt with in Kent were all, without exception—without
exception—arranged to be brought here by criminals who had
taken money from their families. The families' reason for doing
that in the first sense was not economic; the families' reason
was that the Taliban at that time were attacking the male members
of the families. It was quite clear that they were at risk. If
the father had been murdered, the issue was that the next eldest
needed to be moved fast. You knew that in the first instance it
was about asylum and about risk. Then the secondary issue comes.
The secondary issue comes when you have talked to the youngsters
and then they start to say, "Well, I think what I would like
to do now is to carry through my education and make an economic
contribution to the country and not necessarily go back home."
It is complex. That other 50% is not simple sound bites, it is
much more convoluted than that.
Q152 Chairman: You are saying that
50% approximately were fleeing some kind of persecution.
Mr Gilroy: Yes. You only have
to look at countries of origin. You can see that those countries
of origin had serious issues—and Afghanistan, for us in
Kent, was a big one. In that sense, it was clear that these youngsters
got here, even though they were brought by criminals who had paid,
and when they left Afghanistan it was because their parents, or
their mothers generally, thought them to be at risk.
Q153 David Winnick: Harriet Sergeant,
on criminal gangs, you suggested identity cards and one or two
other measures. Do you really feel, whatever measures are put
into effect, that effectively the criminal gangs can be curbed?
Ms Sergeant: I think at the moment
we are doing absolutely nothing against them, so anything would
be better than that.
David Winnick: If you take, for example,
the tragedy—
Chairman: Mr Winnick, may I stop you
there. You are asking question 11, which is in Mr Cameron's name.
I am sorry about that.
Q154 Mr Watson: I have just a point
of clarification. Did you say what evidence you have to show that
the majority of young men entering the country have paid criminal
gangs?
Ms Sergeant: I think nearly all
of them . . . How else do you get into this country? There is
no other way for them to come here.
Q155 Mr Watson: It is speculative.
You have no evidence.
Ms Sergeant: I have talked to
an awful lot of asylum seekers. I think if you went out and talked
to every asylum seeker you would find they had all come in with
criminal gangs and they all say this is the only way to come into
this country. The reason is because of changes this country made.
In the 1980s we started asking for visa requirements from various
countries and in that way there was no other way of entering this
country. I mean, if you are in fear of your life, you can hardly
go outside the British Consul and queue up and ask for a visa.
The only way you can come here is by coming in with a criminal
gang.
Q156 Mr Watson: So you have reached
that conclusion by interviewing asylum seekers.
Ms Sergeant: Yes. And by looking
at the facts, that, if you are physically in one country, how
do you get to another country if you are not allowed to take a
visa?
Q157 Mr Watson: There is no evidence
that there is any other way of getting in.
Ms Sergeant: I could tell you
another way of getting in but this is not used because of the
aggressive marketing of the criminal gangs in their own country.
A much simpler method of going in, which the criminal gangs also
use, is simply to take a French identity card—to go to Paris,
and to buy a fake identity card, which is very easy to do, and
to use that to enter this country. If you go and stand at Stansted
Airport, you will see streams of people entering, holding up their
identity cards, and they are not stopped.
Q158 Mr Watson: Are you saying there
is a market in French identity cards?
Ms Sergeant: And Italian ones,
yes.
Q159 Mr Watson: French and Italian
identity cards.
Ms Sergeant: Yes.
1 See Ev 181-182. Back
|
