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
|
