Select Committee on Home Affairs Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witness (Questions 60-79)

8 FEBRUARY 2005

RT HON CHARLES CLARKE MP

  Q60 Mr Clappison: That is a thorny issue.

  Mr Clarke: Indeed, there will be thorny issues there. Am I going to say we should stop British universities recruiting students overseas? Well, I am not; I think they should recruit students overseas. I think British employers who wish to do so should recruit employees from overseas in the target areas we have identified. I think that is the best way to operate. The problem is not the number of people coming into the country, it is people evading, not playing by the rules, not operating the system in a proper way. So the issue is enforcement principally rather than numbers. I know the Conservative Party wishes to play the numbers game on this but I do not accept that is the right way to go.

  Q61 Mr Clappison: 150,000 has been the level over the last several years. You have told us your views on what the universities want and perhaps some employers would want, do you take into account the population pressures and housing pressures this is creating, given that such a large number of the people inwardly migrating to the country want to live in the South East and London?

  Mr Clarke: I do take into account those pressures and I think those issues are real. How do I address them? Firstly, it is very important people who come here to migrate are able to support themselves financially and economically, including in housing and other areas, and they do not become a burden on the state. That is generally the case for people who migrate to work and study. Secondly, people who are seen as "burdens" in this area are people who are here illegally who should not be here. They are the issue rather than the people who are coming legally to work and study. Thirdly, it is the case there are significant parts of the country who feel they positively want to encourage migrants to their part of the country. The example I gave yesterday was Scotland, where the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish executive have a Fresh Talent initiative which is specifically designed to bring people into the country because that enables them to deal with some of the de-population which they otherwise worry is causing problems for their economy and society in Scotland. That would be true of some parts of England as well, so I certainly think that is a consideration which has to come through. My main point is, as I say, of course it is possible for anybody to play the numbers game in this area, but I do put it to you and all members of the Committee, Mr Denham, that playing a numbers game is a very dangerous route to play. I think we should look, alternatively, at what our economy needs, what our society needs, how we should operate and also what our obligations in international law are for those genuinely fleeing from tyranny. That is where we should start. The second set of considerations is who is evading the system and by what means they are evading the system and how we can stop that happening. That is what my paper was setting out to do.

  Q62 Mr Clappison: I will happily join with you in paying tribute to the contribution which migrants make to our society. The 150,000 figure I was referring to was legal migration and the question of those who are illegally here is an entirely different matter. On the subject of legal migration, those 150,000, if you look at the figures, are wanting by and large to move into the South East, that is where they are wanting to live—London and the South East—and the figures going to Scotland and Wales are very small indeed. The way migration patterns work is that people move into the South East. In my county, Hertfordshire, tomorrow we are having a meeting to discuss how we are going to put 79,000 extra houses into the county over the next 18 or so years. Do you look at those pressures and would you be happy with those pressures to continue?

  Mr Clarke: If you argue we should have regional development agencies who seek to build regional economies with strong universities, strong employers, drawing people in to migrate from other parts of the UK or other parts of the European Union, to the North West, the North East, I will go with you. In fact, a very large part of this Government's policy—part of which I understand the Conservative Party wants to rip up—is precisely to encourage economic development throughout the country and to get dynamic employers in parts of the country where there are issues of this kind. I support that approach, I think it is the right way to go. I do not accept a completely laissez-faire system, which simply says, "Let the market rule everything and draw people to London and the South East". The issue of migration and the figures you have mentioned is a sub-question within that overall issue of how you get economic growth and balance across the whole of the UK, and that is what the Government is committed to.

  Q63 Mr Singh: Home Secretary, before I ask a question I would like to make a comment. Whilst a debate on immigration is entirely legitimate and what we should be doing, the context is very important and the way we put it is very important because of the effect on people who were migrants, who were legitimately settled here, who are citizens of this country, who are contributing to this country, who have contributed to this country, and it is not always known the impact these debates have on people settled in that way in terms of their fears, their security from harassment and racism in this country. I hope Parliament will remember that whilst we debate these issues now and in the future.

  Mr Clarke: Can I say that I strongly agree with that point. If I am guilty of the charge of debating it in the wrong way, I would want to correct myself because I think it is very, very important (a) the questions are debated but (b) they are directed correctly. That is why I sought in my statement yesterday to emphasise right from the outset the very strong role that migration plays in our society and has done historically, and also the very important role this country has historically played in providing a refuge for people who are fleeing tyranny. They are both very important parts of where we are and I very much agree with the comments you have just made, Mr Singh.

  Q64 Mr Singh: Coming on to illegal working, Home Secretary, this is a concern we highlighted in our report on asylum in January 2004. We were concerned that tough action was not being taken against employers of illegal labour, we were concerned about the low levels of prosecutions against these employers. Now you made a statement yesterday about illegal working, would you like to tell the Committee how things are going to change under your new proposals?

  Mr Clarke: I think there are two aspects that I want to highlight particularly. The first aspect is the critical importance of tackling the people trafficking criminal organisations because though they traffic people into the country often, also, they traffic them into forms of illegal employment which are utterly appalling in the way they operate. We have seen a number of examples of that and I do think it is important to regard the people who are trafficked into the country as victims of evil men and women rather than as themselves the people who are the cause of the problem. We have to attack those. Secondly, we have to attack those employers who employ people illegally so yesterday into the document I put the proposition that there will be a £2,000 per illegal employee fine for any employer who employs somebody illegally. The reason why we make that proposal is that there is a lot of evidence that when we started saying to carriers of people into this country that they would be fined for bringing in people illegally that changed their behaviour. I think there are very many good employers in this country who would not want to be in that position and would work appropriately. Finally, we have discussed with colleagues and other government departments in these areas, both the Health Department, Treasury, DTI, DWP and others, how we can ensure that our regimes work together to plug in and identify people who are employed illegally. I think these three measures can improve our work in this area.

  Q65 Mr Singh: Is there any evidence to say prosecutions have increased recently?

  Mr Clarke: I do not know what the figures on that are. It is certainly true that prosecutions have increased in people trafficking on the first of those categories. We have had one just recently in my part of the world, East Anglia, a very major conviction of a man organising illegal labour in a variety of different ways, a Ukrainian. There have been a significant number of prosecutions in the people trafficking world. As far as prosecutions for employers employing people illegally are concerned, I do not have data to hand but, again, I am happy to write to the Committee with that if that would be helpful.[5]

  Q66 Mr Singh: Moving on to the 1951 Refugee Convention, and the attitude of the Conservative Party towards it, first of all is it possible to set a quota on the number of refugees? I ask this in the context that most asylum seekers, and I might be wrong and I stand to be corrected, come here clandestinely, all with false documents. In those circumstances, how can you put a quota on people entering? Certainly you can try to remove them but is a quota practical?

  Mr Clarke: I think a quota is utterly impractical. It does go against the UN Convention but, as you correctly say, the overall majority of people seeking asylum do so in this country having, by whatever means, found their way into this country. Many of them have destroyed their documents so we cannot return them to a country, so there it is. The weakness of the quota argument, apart from the breaking of the right which is there in the UN Convention, is that you cannot implement the quota in that regard, and that is a very serious weakness. One of the reasons why I think it is so important that we stay signatories of the UN Convention on Human Rights is that we have to work with other countries to establish removal arrangements where removals are necessary. You cannot do that simply by being fortress Britain in splendid isolation from the rest of the world, we have to work with the rest of the world, it is very important to do so.

  Q67 Mr Singh: I cannot say, apparently, about this concept that pigs might fly. Would you agree it is pie in the sky and also an utterly foolish concept?

  Mr Clarke: Certainly I think it is pie in the sky and it is foolish. It is worse than that actually because in terms of the remarks you made at the beginning of your intervention, I think it is important to have this discussion, the question of who is entitled to be in the country, the question of who is entitled to settle in the country, the question of how we enforce it, these are absolutely fair subjects for the political discussion. They are of concern to the people of the country and they should be addressed but the obligation of everybody concerned, certainly myself, and it is a role that the Home Affairs Select Committee has helped with, is for all parties, and I do not only mean political parties I mean participants in this debate, to put forward properly considered practical propositions. If you do not do that people naturally have the fears that you describe. My appeal to all political parties, including my own in that sense, is to say let us have practical propositions.

  Q68 Mr Singh: The Refugee Convention, of course, came about in a totally different world, we are in a totally different era now. Is there any merit in relooking at the Convention and having an international discussion to make sure it reflects today's world and not the world of 1951?

  Mr Clarke: I think there is a great deal of merit in that and one of the things my predecessors looked at is how conceivably we could bring it more up to date because the world is now such a globalised world in such a different state of international travel from what existed then that it is right to say that we should look at it in that context. I would say that it needs to be looked at in the way you have suggested, ie in an international context of everybody together saying "What would be the best way to update it or amend it?" By definition it is not something this country could do unilaterally if it wished to do so and I think simply pulling out of it would be more damaging than anything else. If you say "Is it a perfectly formed legal document for the modern world, 54 years after it was signed?" I would say no, it does need to be looked at but in an international context and discussed properly.

  Q69 Mrs Dean: Home Secretary, the 2002 White Paper Secure Borders, Safe Haven proposed the introduction of language and knowledge tests for immigrants who were intending to settle here. Could you say what progress has been made with regard to this?

  Mr Clarke: Yes, there has been progress. In my previous capacity as Secretary of State for Education and Skills we had dialogue with the Home Office about trying to establish a proper availability of courses for people who wanted to learn in that way. There was quite a lot of discussion about it and the Learning and Skills Council has been looking at how it can support courses for people in that way. I cannot give a formal update on precisely what progress there has been but I can say there has been a lot of discussion about achieving it and I think in many parts of the country there are courses available in a way that was not the case in the past. It is the case, also, I can say there are parts of the country where the courses are not available which need to be.

  Q70 Mrs Dean: Would it be possible for you to let the Committee know?

  Mr Clarke: Yes. Perhaps I will give a substantive note for the Committee on the progress we have made in this area.[6]

  Q71 Mrs Dean: Turning to ministers of religion. The Home Office has been consulting faith groups on its proposals to introduce religious qualification requirements for those seeking admission as ministers of religion. Can you tell us what has been the outcome of the consultation? Will the Home Office be proceeding with the proposals?

  Mr Clarke: We are still in consultation. We have not taken a decision as to exactly how to proceed. What we do say is the sponsorship arrangements that we discussed in the document yesterday include a requirement for the community which wishes to bring a minister of religion from another country to sponsor that minister who comes. I think that is a correct way to proceed. Actually, I think that is a better way to proceed than simply looking at religious qualifications in a narrow way. Obviously the central requirement that people are faith leaders is an important part of the whole process but we are still considering the detailed response of the consultation.

  Q72 Mrs Dean: Following on from that, will you be trying to encourage those groups who are bringing ministers of religion into the country to ensure they have a good knowledge of the English language and of British customs as well?

  Mr Clarke: Yes, I will. Perhaps one particular aspect which I think is of interest was the recent agreement to produce a non-statutory code for religious education and where all faiths agreed to the way in which that is developed. What is very important is that religious education which is important in the modern world, faith education which is important in the modern world, is taught in a way that is respectful of other religions and deals on that basis. I think we now have a non-statutory framework for religious education which did not exist before which also ought to be part of the awareness process for people coming into this country.

  Q73 Mr Singh: A supplementary on this particular issue: my concern is that there are ministers of religion or holy men or specialists in special ceremonies who come to visit the UK, whether Muslims, Sikhs, and presumably Buddhists, they perform at various temples around the country, and they are established figures and leaders of their faiths abroad. Will they be caught by this new proposal?

  Mr Clarke: Certainly not. I think the established figures are precisely those we want to encourage to come to our country and to work with faith groups. It is increasingly an international world and that should be the case, so I do not see any issue of that kind. What I think is important is a minister who is coming should be related to a particular community, which could be a national community or a local community, which should take responsibility for the way in which that individual is here. I think that is a reasonable thing for us to ask, to ensure that is the way to operate.

  Q74 David Winnick: There was a case in Germany which was much-publicised, and rightly so, in Britain, where one particular preacher was coming out with the most poisonous racist stuff, accusing Germans of being infidels, being racist, inferior and dirty in all their habits. What sort of precautions do we have in Britain against the possibility some maniac would be preaching such staff in mosques?

  Mr Clarke: I think the core issue is the desire to prohibit incitement to hatred. We already have that in relation to race, and the amendment which the House passed yesterday at Report on the Serious and Organised Crime Bill deals with religious hatred as well, which means we now have in place a comprehensive way of attacking those who incite hatred. I do think incitement to hatred is a high test, it is not simply saying people cannot disagree with other religions or cannot make jokes about religions, or whatever, which I think in our society is important, that people are able to criticise religions, to make jokes about religions, but what is unacceptable is incitement to hatred. Both words are important, "hatred" and "incitement", and our legislative framework allows people who seek to do that to be brought to justice in an effective way, or will be if the Serious and Organised Crime Bill goes to law.

  Q75 David Winnick: I noticed a report in today's newspapers that in the Finsbury Park Mosque violence and intimidation was used against the  congregation, or representatives of the congregation, who fortunately have won the battle against these extremists. Is it likely to occur in other places? Have the Home Office had reports where Muslim people are being intimidated and violence used against them by some of these thugs who use the mosque for purely political reasons?

  Mr Clarke: Not specifically, though I think it is important to pay tribute, as you have just done, Mr Winnick, to those at that particular mosque who organised to protect their right to worship in the way they thought right for themselves and inhibit those who sought to oppress them. There have been a lot of people at that mosque who worked well to try and make that happen. We are not aware of a large number of cases where this is taking place, but I join with you in applauding the work of those who say the place of worship—the mosque, the church, the synagogue—is precisely for that, to worship, and not to preach hatred.

  Q76 David Winnick: There are reports that people who leave the Muslim faith are in some danger of intimidation. The right to convert is absolutely essential in a free society—although I am not in favour of conversion to any faith, people should be left alone and no active conversion should take place, but in a free society that is right. But surely, there is an equal right to leave a religion, be it Islam,  Judaism, Christianity, whatever? Will the authorities give protection to people who leave whatever faith but are subject to thuggery and intimidation in various forms?

  Mr Clarke: Of course I agree with that entirely. It is a critical individual liberty to decide what your faith is and people in their lives go through different decisions about the faiths they have, and that is a matter for them.

  Q77 David Winnick: But are the authorities taking active steps in view of some of the allegations which are being made?

  Mr Clarke: We would certainly do so, though I have to confess, Mr Winnick, I am not aware of the level of criticism you are making. I will certainly look at any particulars you bring to my attention.

  Q78 Chairman: Returning to yesterday's announcement, Home Secretary, and the question of illegal labour, some of the companies which benefit most from illegal labour, some of the big supermarket companies, banks and others who have offices, are protected from your new penalty by the fact they use sub-contracted companies who are the employers of the illegal labour. What measures are you going to take to push the responsibility for this practice up to the ultimate beneficiaries?

  Mr Clarke: Firstly, they are not protected in the sense that the contract employer is vulnerable in this  area directly, but in terms of corporate responsibility, if I may put it like that, I completely agree with what you are saying. I have spoken to the Director-General of the Confederation of British Industry who tells me he intends to campaign on this matter with his members, in particular dealing with some of the gangmasters who are around, and that the voice of British industry, if I can put it like that, takes the view that this abuse has to be driven out. I am delighted that is the case.

  Chairman: Thank you very much. We will move on if we may to deal with one or two issues the Committee has been working on over the last year. We published a report just a few weeks ago on the rehabilitation of prisoners and the prison regime. Claire Curtis-Thomas?

  Q79 Mrs Curtis-Thomas: Home Secretary, I find visiting our British prisons is by and large a very depressing activity. There are very few which inspire. Many seem to me to be ghettoes of last resort, and individuals leave them without being rehabilitated in the sense we would wish. You will be pleased to know, following a visit to Berlin Prison, the governor of Berlin Prison thinks the British penal system has some excellent merits but is absolutely aghast at the number of movements which we tolerate between our prisons, believing this has a very serious impact on our ability to rehabilitate. Having said that, I hope you have had an opportunity to look at the Committee's Reports, particularly the conclusions in relation to prison work. In particular, do you accept that a radical transformation of the prison regime is needed to enable prisoners to do real work on a 9 to 5 basis and to have more access to day release?

  Mr Clarke: I do, but can I begin by saying that I am grateful for your full report and that it is my intention to respond to each of the, I think, 126 conclusions of the report and recommendations by early March. I appreciate the debate you have promoted by going down the course of this report. Secondly, I agree very strongly with the remark you have made about moving people. I have always argued that for a Government whose priorities are education and health, the least educated and least healthy people in the whole of the population of the country are those within the criminal justice system. I do not say it is impossible but it is very difficult to have a proper regime to address those education or health disadvantages, whether drugs and mental health, or illiteracy or innumeracy, whatever it might be, unless you take an individual right through instead of stopping and starting and changing around in the way you are implying. That is why the whole National Offender Management Service approach of end-to-end management of an offender dealing with these issues is I think so central. That said, I have to acknowledge I think there is a very long way to go to get to a state of affairs where we have achieved this, but if it is any consolation to the Committee, which I hope it will be, I identify personally very strongly and very directly with the thrust of the question you have just asked and I think it is very important indeed.


5   See Ev 21. Back

6   See Ev 21. Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2005
Prepared 3 March 2005