Examination of Witnesses (Questions 387
- 399)
THURSDAY 5 JUNE 2003
MS MARGARET
LALLY, MS
ALISON STANLEY,
MS HILARY
LLOYD, MR
KEITH BEST
AND MR
COLIN YEO
Q387 Chairman: Good morning, ladies
and gentlemen. Apologies for keeping you waiting. One or two of
you are familiar faces. Would you like to run down, from left
to right, saying who you are and what you do?
Ms Lally: I am Margaret Lally.
I am the Acting Chief Executive of the Refugee Council.
Ms Stanley: I am Alison Stanley.
I am the Deputy Chair of the Immigration Committee of the Law
Society. I am a solicitor.
Ms Lloyd: I am Hilary Lloyd. I
am from Strategic Policy in the Law Society.
Mr Best: Keith Best, Chief Executive
of the Immigration Advisory Service.
Mr Yeo: Colin Yeo. I am Head of
Higher Appeals at IAS.
Chairman: One of the things we want to
avoid is getting five answers to every question, particularly
as some of you come from the same organisation. Could you bear
that in mind, please, as we go along. Mr Winnick is going to start
the ball rolling.
Q388 David Winnick: There has been
quite a rise—and the figures are not disputed—over
the last 10 years in the number of people claiming asylum from
the United Kingdom. How far are those applications—perhaps,
to Mr Best, since you touched on this in your memo—due to
factors specific to the United Kingdom?
Mr Best: I think very largely.
If you look at the UNHCR figures, for example, for the growth
in asylum applications throughout Europe, you will see certain
differences there and very often those differences reflect the
historic legacy of particular countries; in Germany, for example,
it has been from Turkey. But something of which I would hope most
British citizens are proud is the reasons why many people choose
to come to this country, such as the facility of the English language,
the fact that Britain does have a legacy through the Commonwealth,
the previous empire, links with countries like Zimbabwe, for example.
Many of these countries' institutions are based upon our own institutions,
they are familiar with the system of law, but also there are diverse
communities already existing in this country, some of which have
been there for literally hundreds of years. All of these are reasons
why people might choose, if they have the choice—and I stress
that—to come to the United Kingdom. Sadly, it is only recently
that we have seen the first piece of qualitative research done
into establishing whether those reasons are valid, and some of
us have been articulating those reasons as likely ones for a very
long time. It is nice to have those views confirmed by the first
piece of qualitative research. The sadness is that we have had
policies in the past which have been based upon assumptions rather
than research. The most classic example of that was the denial
of benefits, done first of all in 1996 by the previous Government,
then followed on with vouchers, all on the pre-supposition that
people were coming here for benefits. Even Sir Andrew Green himself
of Migrationwatch was saying the other day—I think maybe
to you, Chairman, I cannot remember now—that benefits were
not the reason that people came to this country. It seems terribly
sad that so much human misery and taxpayer's money has been wasted
on a false assumption.
Q389 David Winnick: Many people in
this country find it difficult to understand that if there are
those in places where the rule of law applies—they have
managed to get to, say, Germany and certainly to France, where
the rule of law is no less than in the United Kingdom—why
should there be such a wish—indeed, involving the possible
loss of their own lives—to cross from France to the United
Kingdom? If the French are willing to allow the people to stay,
based on whether or not they are genuine asylum seekers, why risk
their lives by coming to the United Kingdom?
Ms Lally: That is not always the
case. I think if you look at the systems in France and Germany,
they actually have different systems to ours. I am not saying
one is better or worse but certainly in France it can take an
awfully long time actually to get your claim accepted. Certainly
until recently—and I think it is still the case—you
were not able to access benefits during that period. Certainly
Germany, for instance, does not normally accept victims of non-state
persecution. So many people feel that they would not get such
a fair hearing in Germany and that they would not be so well looked
after in France. I would also go back to what Keith says, I think,
if you look at the flow of people coming to this country, by and
large it has been people who have got links with this country
in the past, some of the hangovers from the fact that we were
once an empire. If you look at the types of people that France
and Germany have taken, they will quite often take quite a large
and different caseload . Particularly, if you look at Germany,
in 1992, when they had a very large expansion with the number
of asylum seekers coming in in that year and a couple of years
around that, they were taking quite a lot of people from Eastern
Europe because that was seen as being one of the nearest places
for people to go to. So I think it is more complicated than assuming
that each country in Europe offers the same standards of protection.
We have argued—which I think would be extremely helpful
in addressing some of these issues—to have that sort of
harmonisation across Europe which is now starting to take place.
It is now a subject of regret for us that quite often that harmonisation
is leading to a reduction in standards rather than trying to have
the best standards across Europe.
Q390 David Winnick: But you would
accept there is a perception amongst the general public that the
number one port of call for those saying that they are asylum
seekers is the United Kingdom.
Ms Lally: I think there are a
number of general misconceptions amongst the general public which
we may want to come back to. For instance, we normally do a MORI
poll around this time of year and if you ask the general public
what proportion of the general population is asylum seekers, they
will normally say something like 20%. In fact there are far fewer
asylum seekers and refugees in this country. If you go to outside
Europe and look at the numbers of refugees and asylum seekers
in those countries, the numbers are really very large. I do not
think that type of information is given to people in this country.
I think one of the problems is the way the media and to some extent
other key stakeholders have portrayed the numbers of asylum seekers
in this country and really built it up. One of the things I would
say in response to your last question is that it is true that
the UK has seen an increase in numbers in the last 10 years but
so have other countries. Last night I was looking at the figures
for Ireland, for instance, which has seen a phenomenal increase
in the last couple of years. Because that is seen as small numbers,
and in many ways they have had a greater history of dealing with
diaspora, that does not get as much attention. But I think this
focus on the UK as being the asylum centre of Europe is misconceived.
Q391 David Winnick: There is also
a general impression that asylum seekers are going around in chauffeur-driven
cars and having a marvellous time of it all. Does the Refugee
Council welcome the reduction in asylum applications?
Ms Lally: We welcome reductions
which are due to changes in root causes. For instance, there has
been a large reduction in the number of asylum seekers coming
from Sri Lanka in the last year. We think that is to a large extent
due to the peace process which is taking place there, which we
would see as being a really good and well thought out attempt
to bring some genuine peace into the country. If, on the other
hand, you look at the reduction in the numbers of people coming
from Zimbabwe, where there has been quite a sharp reduction, particularly
in the last couple of months, as opposed to a large increase recently,
I think we would express concern that that is due to some of the
visa restrictions which have been placed on people coming here
and I do not think by any stretch of the imagination we are now
saying that Zimbabwe is a safe country. Our concern is that quite
often people are prevented from getting safety in this country
when they are in need of it.
Q392 David Winnick: But would you
accept that there is a limit to how far this country can accept
even genuine asylum applications, bearing in mind the general
mood in the country of hostility? Do you think there should be
a share out in the countries where the rule of law applies, particularly,
obviously, Western Europe?
Ms Lally: We think it is important
that there is responsibility sharing across Europe. Particularly,
bearing in mind now that the greater burden of responsibility
is actually taken outside Europe, I think it is important not
to try to put artificial numbers on this country or any other
country, because, as I think we have seen in the last few years,
the things which drive people to take protection in Britain are
things which are outside our control and are primarily due to
international factors and also how people perceive this country.
A way to address that is to look at how other European countries
deal with asylum seekers and to harmonise processes, so people
feel that they will be welcomed and get the same standard of treatment
whichever country they go to.
Q393 David Winnick: Could I ask Ms
Lloyd of the Law Society, there is a general impression—again,
a general impression, true or otherwise—that the courts
here are more generous to asylum seekers than perhaps courts in
other countries in Western Europe. Do you think there is any substance
to that feeling?
Ms Lloyd: Mr Chairman, if it is
acceptable to you, we have agreed between myself and my colleague
that for the most part Alison Stanley will lead. She is a practitioner
in the area, where I am not.
Q394 David Winnick: Very well.
Ms Stanley: You are asking about
whether there is a perception or whether it is reality that the
courts are more generous.
Q395 David Winnick: Yes, the courts
have overturned a number of decisions by the Home Secretary in
recent times.
Ms Stanley: It is certainly true
that there have been a number of findings in the higher courts
which have overturned decisions of the Home Secretary but that
is partly to do with interpreting a complex international treaty
and there is not yet a harmony of dealing with that treaty. As
Margaret Lally said, there is a move towards harmonising the processes,
including the interpreting of the Convention, and that is to be
welcomed.
Q396 David Winnick: There is a sort
of feeling—again, I am talking about feelings, perceptions—that
the courts are a soft touch when it comes to dealing with asylum
applications.
Ms Stanley: I have to say, as
a practitioner, that is absolutely not true, and I am sure that
the judiciary would be astonished to learn that they are a soft
touch. That is absolutely not true and it is a perception that
has perhaps been brought about by the media rather than reality.
Q397 David Winnick: Do you think
the media are playing a negative role in all of this? We know
of various campaigns by newspapers and the rest, do you have a
general feeling that asylum seekers are being so demonised they
can hardly be looked upon as human beings?
Ms Stanley: I think that is true.
I think there has also been some research into how asylum seekers
and refugees have been perceived over the last 10 years and have
been portrayed in the media, but really I think that is slightly
out of the remit of the Law Society and it might be more appropriate
for the Refugee Council to answer that.
Q398 David Winnick: Presumably, Ms
Lally, that makes your problem as an organisation that much more
difficult.
Ms Lally: Yes, I think that is
right. It creates a two-fold problem. First of all, I think it
is increasingly difficult for asylum seekers to feel welcomed
and that they are going to get fairer treatment in this country.
I quite often do media interviews and question and answer things
and I am often astounded by the hostility I get—and I am
not feeling quite frightened and anxious about it, I live in this
country and I am relatively safe. For asylum seekers to be faced
with that barrage day afer day and to see the headlines in the
newspapers is, I think, extremely frightening and intimidating
for them and I think will create longer term problems. I think,
more particularly, in the short term it is creating a climate
of fear and tension in this country which in many ways is ill-founded.
Quite often I will go to different parts of the country—and
I suspect many of you have heard of this—and be told about
asylum seekers with their mobile phones and their cars and how
they have taken their houses from their best friend down the road
and things, and actually when you go and look there are hardly
any asylum seekers there but people have built up this perception
of there being lots of asylum seekers and them getting benefits
and facilities which are just not available to the rest of the
population. That is creating a lot of tension. If we look at how
we dealt with it when the Kosovan asylum seekers came over here
during the war, there was a completely different approach to it.
I think one of the reasons they were welcomed is because the media
and, I think, national politicians took a very strong lead in
saying that these peoples are victims of war, we should be welcoming
them and ensuring that we meet our international responsibilities.
We have now across the country, particularly in Yorkshire and
Humberside, where many of them settled, examples of good practice
which were borne out of that. I think we have missed a trick in
the last couple of years in not getting those messages over again.
Mr Best: If I may add very briefly,
I think one of the problems is the obsession—and it is an
obsession—with numbers and statistics. Asylum seekers are
seldom looked at as individual human beings who are suffering
persecution. I think one of the reasons—and I agree entirely
with what Margaret Lally says about the Kosovans—is that
the British public were seeing what they were fleeing from every
day on the television set. I think you would probably find similar
sympathy for much of what is going on in Zimbabwe now for similar
reasons. Less sympathy, perhaps, for what was going on in Afghanistan
and Iraq, simply because people were not having access to so much
of what was going on there in comparatively closed societies.
I think that is really where the media have failed. The media
have failed to articulate why people are fleeing from these particular
countries and I think the general public follow that lead and
say, "If things are not too bad there because we are not
told they are too bad there, then lets follow the lead by politicians
and others and just talk about the numbers." You then come
to this question of burden sharing. I share the view that there
has to be burden sharing, but not necessarily on the numbers.
It may be that resources have to be shared more. I think one of
the failures in the past in dealing with asylum seekers has been
this belief you can actually coral people, you can use shepherd
dogs actually to put them into particular compartments, and they
will blithely go where politicians want them to go. The fact is
they are human beings, they are very resourceful and it is very
difficult to control them that way. It is much better to let the
resources follow where they go rather than trying to waste a lot
of time and effort in trying to steer them in one direction.
Q399 David Winnick: Mr Best, you
are very critical—you have made that clear on previous occasions
and in your papers to the Committee—about the way the backlog
has been built up as a result of what can only be described as
incompetence (your description, if not your actual words) by the
Home Office in dealing with this. Do you think you are really
justified in putting the blame on civil servants?
Mr Best: I would not wish to single
out individual civil servants: I think they have a terribly difficult
task and most of the ones I know are extremely well meaning and
competent individuals who are labouring under a system which in
itself has been in chaos because it has been subject to so many
knee-jerk reactions and changes.
| 
