Mr.
Woolas: There is a counter-argument and this is a very
difficult area of public policy. There are some circumstances in which
asylum seekers, and failed asylum seekers, can work. The Government
take the view that extending the right to work to people claiming
asylum has the disadvantage of encouraging the pull factor—our
research backs this up—and would significantly outweigh the
advantages referred to by my hon. Friend. There is also the political
judgment on whether it would be socially equitable for the domestic
work force—that is a very elaborate way of referring to British
jobs.
Damian
Green: I have a few questions on the reception document.
Will the Minister clarify what “subsidiary protection”
means? Does it mean that a new class of people is allowed to come here,
as well as those seeking refugee status, and what numbers are we
talking about annually?
Further to
the point made by the hon. Member for Selby, has the Minister
considered the effects of the interaction of the six-month labour
market limit with the cost of visas under the points-based system, and
indeed the current absence of any visas for unskilled workers, under
the points-based system? Will that not encourage people who use the
asylum system as a way into the UK labour
market? If
we made it easier, under the asylum system, to be here for six months
and then get a job, which would be easier under the Government’s
current policy, would the Minister not be worried that that would
encourage people to use that route into the UK labour market,
particularly given the current conditions of the points-based
system?
Mr.
Woolas: If I have understood the hon. Gentleman correctly,
if one were to say that six months would give a rights to work
entitlement, that would see a significant increase in the number of
people using the asylum route either to get settlement or to stay in
the UK. It would also—this is a key argument—encourage
delay within the asylum process, because the finishing line would be
the six months, not the decision to grant or not to grant.
The Committee knows my views on some of the tactics used by some of the
legal and other representatives to delay the system, and one could
indeed argue that there would be an incentive to abscond for six
months. The
mid-term people who do not get the full rights under the 1951
convention are those who are described as getting subsidiary protection
but who are not classified as refugees. Under the qualifications
directive, one of the three directives to which I have referred, those
people have that status because they cannot be returned due to certain
individual circumstances in their own countries, rather than the
general situation. They are therefore given an intermediate status that
is recognised under the qualifications
directive.
Paul
Rowen: I would like to ask the Minister about the Eurodac
proposals. Under the current regime, data are stored for two years, but
the new directive proposes to reduce that to 12 months. Will he explain
why the Government do not support that and want the two-year
requirement to be
retained?
Mr.
Woolas: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman for spotting
that. The simple reason is that we think that two years is more
effective. Personally, I would go much further and do not see that it
would result in any infringement of liberty. Policy makers need to set
their face against what is in many cases a sinister approach from
organised crime, which often exploits those people. I have been advised
that the reduction to 12 months is in line with the Dublin proposals,
so some are arguing for 12 months because it will bring the figure in
line with their own policies, but we see no reason to reduce it.
Indeed, if anything, we would want to increase
it.
Damian
Green: I, too, would like to ask about the Eurodac system.
If the Minister does not consider the further expansion of the
retention of data for longer periods to be any kind of threat to
freedom, he will certainly find that the Opposition do, and I
suspect that the same is true of the Liberal Democrats. I
assume that that is why the hon. Member for Rochdale asked that
pertinent question, which I, too, had planned to ask. Will the Minister
tell the Committee how many fingerprints the UK has already put into
the Eurodac
system?
Mr.
Woolas: With regard to the privacy aspect, it is not the
case that those people do not have rights, because they have rights
under the European convention. We are talking about asylum seekers, so
this is nothing to do with the debate we had in the House yesterday
during Question Time. I suspect that the Liberal Democrats will
probably oppose an extension and that the Conservatives will probably
agree with me, but perhaps I am being
unfair. I
am afraid that I do not have precise figures on fingerprints but offer
to write to the hon. Gentleman about that. All asylum claimants have
their fingerprints taken and that database is then available through
Eurodac, so the answer to the question is the total number of
claimants. Within the European Union, however, 17 per cent. of asylum
claimants are duplicates who have claimed, for example, in both Greece
and the UK, and that figure includes triplicates who may have claimed,
for example, in Greece, the UK and Ireland. That
number, whatever it is, is the answer to the hon. Gentleman’s
question, but I am afraid that I do not know what it is off the top of
my head. Paul
Rowen: The Minister talked about the changes in the
directive that laid down clear rules about keeping people in detention
and set out the reasons why people have to be detained. Why does he
feel that that is not adequate protection? Surely we should use
detention only when a speedy decision and a speedy exit are on the way.
Do we not have far too many people in detention centres awaiting a
decision on asylum? It is the UK Border Agency’s failure to deal
with that that is the problem, not the fact that those people have to
be kept in
detention.
Mr.
Woolas: I understand the logic of the hon.
Gentleman’s argument, but I do not accept the premise. There are
many reasons why the UKBA is not able to operate without detentions,
some of them to do with the statutory framework that Parliament has put
upon it and some of them to do with the European convention and the
1951
convention. I
will, if I may, put on record this important policy point, which the
hon. Gentleman has given me the opportunity to address. In 2003 the
Government introduced the detained fast-track system, which was seen as
a deterrent against unfounded asylum claims. As we saw people using the
asylum system to make unfounded claims as a route into the country,
that policy was introduced. Nearly 7 per cent. of cases per year go
through that independent system, of which 95 per cent. are found to be
groundless. That backs up my argument. In around 75 per cent. of those
95 per cent. of cases, the individuals are removed from the country
within six months. The fast-track system is the right system because
the only way ultimately to reconcile a proper and fair asylum system
with abuse, is to process claims as quickly as possible, commensurate
with being fair. Current detention powers, which do not require
automatic judicial oversight or authorisation, are in line with article
5 of the Human Rights Act 1998, and individuals can apply for bail to
an immigration
judge. These
proposals would create a two-tier detention system, with asylum seekers
being treated more favourably than others, and that could encourage
foreign national prisoners—within this category of people
detained are foreign national prisoners—
[Interruption.] “Too many”,
the hon. Member for Ashford says. We have had many debates on that
issue. The proposed system could encourage foreign national prisoners
to claim asylum to benefit from the more favourable provisions.
Specific time limits on detention would increase the incentive for
asylum seekers to play out time to ensure their release, and thereby
jeopardise our ability to remove those who had made unfounded claims.
Significantly, the system would also put pressure on the tribunal
service. I
hope that that satisfies the hon. Member for Rochdale and convinces him
that our attitude towards the proposals is consistent. He probably
disagrees in principle with the policy and I respect that, but we are
applying it consistently with the
proposals.
Damian
Green: I have a couple of questions on the “new
Dublin” proposals, the updated Dublin proposals. First, I
understand the Government’s concern about the dependent
relatives clause. Will the Minister tell us how
wide, under this document, the definition of dependent relative would
be, so that the Committee can assess how big an effect that would
have? Secondly,
will the Minister explain the interaction between the Dublin process
and what is still regrettably going on in Calais? He will know that
many people, in as much as they understand the Dublin process, will
wonder why individuals who wish to claim asylum in the EU and have got
as far as northern France—a friendly, democratic country and a
member of the EU—do not claim asylum there. Why are any
of them trying to come across the channel to claim
asylum
here?
Mr.
Woolas: That is a very good question, which I am sure the
whole Committee will
support. On
the family reunification and children point, I will explain why we do
not support the revised provisions to widen the definition of dependent
relative. Member states resisted similar provisions during the
negotiation of the existing Dublin regulation, interestingly enough,
and the Commission has come back with these proposals. The arguments we
used then, we think apply now. It is often difficult to determine
whether alleged family members are related as claimed or
dependent on others. The hon. Gentleman will know from his
experience that not everybody tells the whole truth. Many family cases
can be difficult to decide due to the absence or poor quality of
documentation from countries of origin and, indeed, a lack of
consistency in the verbal statements taken by our officials through
interviews. This, of course, is not confined to transfers under the
Dublin system but applies equally in the context of the whole
immigration and asylum policy. By defining the notion of family more
widely we believe we would unwittingly make the problem exponentially
more difficult. There is a serious point—which I know the hon.
Gentleman supports—regarding the exploitation and trafficking of
children who are allegedly related to the claimant. That is a very
difficult area of public policy. It was for those reasons that we
rejected the wider definition.
On the
relationship with northern France, the hon. Gentleman makes a powerful
point that backs up our argument—we debated this in public
recently on the BBC. People trying to get through the channel tunnel
have, on the whole, chosen not to claim asylum in France which, to my
mind, shows that they are not genuinely seeking escape from
persecution, as defined under the Geneva convention. Our co-operation
with the French prevents most people coming through the tunnel. This
package of proposals, if adopted correctly, can help that
situation—particularly through Eurodac and the third-country
Dublin proposals—and encourage the French to use them. I
reassure him that people trying to get into the UK who are apprehended
in northern France by our officials or French officials are
fingerprinted. He raises a good question which is why we need to revise
the
situation.
Paul
Rowen: On the same issue of vulnerable groups, perhaps the
Minister could tell us how many cases the UK Border Agency has dealt
with in the last 12 months. Does he not accept that the proposals in
this document for treating them as a separate category—rather
than
treating them as part of the same group of asylum seekers—would
speed up the process and be a benefit in sorting out an
issue?
Mr.
Woolas: I am not sure I follow hon. Gentleman’s
logic that if one dealt with vulnerable groups as a specific category,
one would be able to deal with them more effectively. Am I allowed to
throw the question back, Miss Begg? If the answer is not satisfactory
he may choose to ask it
again.
The
Chairman: Order. He can ask another question,
yes.
Paul
Rowen: I am looking at page 51 of the document and it
states there under the heading “Legislate” that policy
option
a) “would
ensure that vulnerable groups including unaccompanied minors undergo a
specific, accelerated procedure for determining
responsibility”. In
my view that would be an advantage rather than a
disadvantage.
Mr.
Woolas: I confess that I will have to come back to the
hon. Gentleman. The page 51 that I am looking at is clearly a different
page 51. I will explain our policy on the issue, which might answer the
question. The
Commission and member states are trying to address the deficiencies in
dealing with asylum claims from people with special needs, and the
proposal requires member states to establish the procedures outlined by
the hon. Gentleman. First, member states must identify applicants with
special needs, and, secondly, those states must ensure that such
applicants receive support through the asylum procedure. If members of
the Committee are interested, we have put the guidance on the website,
so they can judge cases. I will not quote the website address for the
relevant page, because it is nearly as long as the document under
discussion, but it is under the UKBA guidance
section. Considering
our procedures and guidance, we believe that we already operate a
perfectly good system for identifying, looking after and coping with
those with special needs. If there is such a need, we can, and do,
refer the matter to social services, and the application forms
themselves afford asylum seekers a further opportunity to declare
special needs, including medical requirements. We therefore believe
that the proposal for member states to establish an identification
process will put our front-line staff in a difficult
position. Victims
of rape, torture and trafficking—the hon. Member for Rochdale
deals with such cases in his advice surgery—are naturally
reluctant to discuss their experiences until they have established a
rapport with someone, which would not be possible with a screening and
interviewing process. Our current system allows self-referral and
integrated access to health care for asylum seekers, including those
with mental health disorders—some genuine cases involve
traumatised people—and we consider that to be a better way of
dealing with the issue. The Commission’s intention is right, but
in practice the UK perhaps functions better than some other states.
Indeed, putting the Commission’s
strict criteria up front might jeopardise our ability to provide help to
people who need it. There is a balance, but I think that that is the
answer. The
Chairman: If there are no more questions, we will move on
to debate the
motion. Motion
made, and Question
proposed, That
the Committee takes note of European Union Documents No. 16913/08 and
Addenda 1 to 3, draft Directive laying down minimum standards for the
reception of asylum seekers, No. 16934/08 and Addenda 1 to
3, draft Regulation on the establishment of ‘EURODAC’ for
the comparison of fingerprints for the effective application of the
Regulation establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the
Member State responsible for examining an application for international
protection, and No. 16929/08 and Addenda 1 to 3, Regulation
establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member
State responsible for examining an application for international
protection lodged in one Member State by a third country national or a
stateless person; supports the Government’s aim of making more
efficient the arrangements for identifying the Member State responsible
for determining a claim for international protection (and, where
appropriate, for removing to that country the person applying for
protection); and supports the Government’s aim of ensuring that
minimum standards for the treatment of those seeking protection in the
EU support the maintenance of an effective asylum system that grants
protection to those who need it and identifies and swiftly returns
those who do not.—(Mr.
Woolas.) 5.23
pm
| 
