|

Asylum and immigration

Speech by Stephen Byers to Social Market Foundation

At the beginning of the year I was discussing with a political commentator my plan to do a series of seminars with the Social Market Foundation. I explained that my aim would be to address those difficult issues faced by the government with the freedom of a backbencher to raise pointed questions and to put forward new ideas in order to stimulate debate.

We discussed the topics that needed to be covered. They suggested devoting one seminar to asylum and immigration. I agreed that this was one of the most difficult issues facing the government but didn't feel that a sensible, rational debate was possible. At the beginning of the year the asylum system was under severe strain and subject to major criticism. Raising some of the sensitive issues involved would have inflamed matters and generated more heat than light.

The fact that I believe it is now possible to debate theses issues is because the government is getting on top of the problems. The actions taken by David Blunkett – often under criticism from both the left and right – provide us with the space to discuss asylum and immigration without feeling that we are doing so in the face of a storm.

Whilst strongly supporting the action taken by the government so far I do hope they will be just the first steps on the path to establishing a policy for asylum and immigration which will be sustainable in the longer term and command the broad support of the British people.

Need for debate

There is no doubt in my mind that immigration and asylum is one of the most important issues facing our country.

One of the major duties of a government must be to control and secure its own national borders – it is what the public expect. Yet over the years the political centre-left has steered clear of the debate leaving the ground to be occupied by the right.

The reluctance to enter the debate is understandable. The issues are delicate and difficult. They go to the heart of national identity and questions of culture and heritage.

A wrong word out of place and you can be branded a racist. This has explained why I thought long and hard about entering the debate but after giving it due consideration my conclusion is that it is not racist to address the legitimate worries and concerns that people have about asylum and immigration but that it would be irresponsible not to do so.

Now that does not mean that we should accept the views that everyone expresses without challenging them. Racists will exploit concerns that people have. When they do so in a manner which is based on prejudice or discrimination then they need to be challenged. As do misleading reports as we saw last week in John Ware's Panorama programme which David Blunkett was right to attack in such forthright terms.

However we must ensure that whilst racists are challenged we don't deny debate to those who have genuine concerns. To try to close down discussions will simply fuel the view that there is something to hide.

For this Labour government it is vital that it doesn't lose sight of the issues that really matter to the British people. It must not allow pressures of the moment to distract or divert it from giving full attention to the three policy areas that will count at the time of the next election – the economy; the quality of public services especially education and health; and safety in our streets and homes and security at our national borders.

On all of these three issues the government needs to be active. It needs to claim credit for what it has achieved but must also be able to demonstrate that new thinking and renewal is taking place.

For the Labour Party consideration of asylum and immigration policy is never going to be easy. On the one hand we have the left's traditional support for those escaping from persecution. A desire to see the end to discrimination and a wish to see people treated fairly and with dignity.

On the other it was clearly the case that many of Labour's traditional supporters are those that fear immigration the most. They are concerned that their schools and health services are under increased pressure; that in some way their national identity is under threat and that they have to pay for people who are simply exploiting the present system.

We mustn't fall into the trap of saying these are worries which have been created by the right and if ignored will go away. That was the mistake made by a number of parties on the left elsewhere in Europe who went on to pay a heavy political price at the ballot box.

This does not mean giving in to rightwing populism. What it does mean is addressing the concerns that people have. It will entail tackling and exploding the myths and untruths about asylum and immigration and ensuring we have a system in place which is clearly fair.

There will be some who would rather avoid this issue. Within the Labour Party it would be the soft and easy option to say this is not a priority and that by raising it we are playing into the hands of the racists and the right wing.

But we cannot pretend to people that there isn't an issue when for many there clearly is. To deny the concerns of people would give the appearance of being out of touch or of simply not caring.So in order to show that we are aware of the worries that people have we need to say openly exactly what we want from our immigration policy and then construct a programme and set of procedures that will deliver and then robustly enforce it.

So let us consider the scale of the problem and some proposals for change

Scale

The statement that the U.K. has become the asylum capital of the world has often been made in recent months.

Is this really the case? It is true to say that last year the U.K. received a record 86,000 asylum applications with 24,000 dependents.

But on a global basis Pakistan has 2 million refugees and 1.8 million have been accepted by Iran. Present figures from the United Nations show that out of 12 million refugees in the world, the developed west has fewer than 1 million.

Last year in Europe in terms of applications per head of population the U.K. was eighth. With four countries – Switzerland, Sweden, Norway and Austria - each receiving proportionally twice as many as the U.K.

So it is inaccurate to describe Britain as the asylum capital of the world. Although that doesn't diminish the concerns that people have.

It is also worth considering the long term implications of the present levels of immigration into the U.K.

Writing in the autumn 2002 edition of Population Trends, Chris Shaw of the government's actuary's department reports on the official projections for future U.K. population levels based on various assumptions.

If net immigration were to continue at roughly its present rate then the total U.K. population will increase by 5.7 million over the next 50 years. The proportion aged over 65 rises from 15.6% in 2000 to 24.3% in 2050.

He also reports on a projection based on zero net migration – in other words those coming into the country are in balance with those leaving. Under this assumption the U.K. population would fall by 4.7 million over the next 50 years and the proportion aged over 65 rises to 27%

So we can see that some of the alarmist talk about dramatic increases in numbers is simply not borne out by the projections.

These figures reveal the danger of a Fortress U.K. approach where we would end up with a population in decline and getting increasingly old. Not the strongest position to be in to ensure we are a dynamic economic force in the future.

However it is important not to be complacent and ensure that we have in place policies which have broad support and procedures that are not vulnerable to abuse or exploitation.

Way Forward

Any consideration of the next steps in addressing the issue of asylum and immigration cannot ignore the reasons why the majority of people want to leave their country of birth.

For the majority the reason is simple – they want a better life for themselves and their family. This is the root cause of migration.

So policies that tackle poverty in developing countries must be part of the overall strategy.

I'm not naïve enough to believe that we can make life so great for people in Albania in Sub-Sahara Africa that no-one will want to leave, but I do feel that the provision of aid; debt relief and a more just world trading system can make a real difference.

It is important for any government to be in control of its own borders and for reasons of public confidence to be seen to be in control.

There are three clear grounds on which applications to come to the U.K. can be made, on the basis of asylum, family re-union and work.

In order to ensure that our immigration and asylum system is working in the national interest and has the support and confidence of the British people, consideration must should given to the setting of an annual limit on the total immigration into the U.K.

I do not believe a limit can be placed on the granting of asylum, as this would depend on the number of people in any one year seeking to escape from persecution or terror. I would also be reluctant to place a cap on the number who could be admitted on grounds of family re-union, as this is an area in which I feel the present arrangements are working well.

The number to be restricted would be those admitted each year for the purpose of work. The number of work permits issued would reflect the number admitted in the previous year on the grounds of asylum and family re-union.

In order for there to be total openness and discussion of the issues involved that there should be an annual debate in Parliament to determine the overall immigration limit for the following year.

Once an overall limit has been established then it must be properly enforced and steps need to be taken to tackle any possible abuse and this also applies to the existing regime.

One area of weakness is in relation to those who come to the U.K. quite legally on a temporary basis and then simply extend their stay.

There are three main ways in which this can happen – people can be admitted as students, to visit relatives or to transit between two countries.

There is no doubt that students from overseas are a huge benefit to the U.K. The vast majority are here for the right reasons. They will go on after graduation to be great advocates and supporters of the U.K.

But there are a number of people coming to the U.K. as students who really have no intention of either completing a course of studies or leaving once they have done so.

In order to tackle this abuse effectively sanctions will need to be imposed on the college or university. It is for them to ensure that the students they admit are bona fide.

If a student fails to leave the U.K. after their course has been completed unless they can demonstrate that they have acted in good faith then why not a fine on the college or university?

This would certainly stop the growth of colleges that seem to have more to do with providing access into the U.K. than a valuable and worthwhile learning process.

Visas to visit the U.K. to attend weddings, funerals or simply to see relatives are clearly important and must be available on a flexible basis – perhaps even more so than at present. But it is a system that must not be abused.

This will mean an effective system of either requiring a financial surety to be lodged which will be returned when the visitor leaves the U.K. or a charge made on an asset held by the visitors family in the U.K. which can be called on if the visitor fails to leave at the end of their visit.

An area of growing concern at the moment is that of transit passengers through the U.K. This occurs when someone travels from one country to another via the U.K.

They have a visa for their final destination and an air ticket but this is a day or two after their arrival in the U.K. Once here they fail to turn up for their final flight.

In order to stop this loop-hole being exploited the Home Office should investigate the issuing of transit visas or if the view is that someone is at risk of failing to return for their final flight then they should remain in a secure area at the receiving airport or nearby until their departure.

This controlled approach to students, visitors and those in transit will only work if we know who exactly is leaving our country.

To achieve this we will need to re-instate embarkation controls at U.K. borders. It would need to be based on a system which was robust and able to follow through and identify those that had failed to present themselves when they were due to leave. But if we are serious about safeguarding our borders then the establishment of embarkation controls would play a crucial part. Not just in relation to students, visitors and those in transit but also as I will explain later, to those asylum seekers whose claims have failed.

The Home Office provisionally estimate that the cost of recording electronically the admissions and departures of all non-European Economic Area nationals is around £20 million a year – many would regard this as a small price to pay to know who is coming in and going out of our country.

The introduction of embarkation controls at British borders would also play a valuable role in tackling the evil of trafficking in children which has come to light in the past 24 hours and is highlighted in today's UNICEF report.

Illegal entrants

A top priority must be to tackle illegal immigration.

Informed sources tell me that some 80% of all those who enter the UK illegally do so through payments made to criminal gangs. The sums involved are significant. The going rate to get from Sri Lanka to the EU is 10,000 dollars, from Somalia it is around 5,000 dollars.

People trafficking is the 21st century form of slavery. It is run by violent gangs linked to criminal activity who have a hold over those they assist.

Once they are in the West they are often illegally employed, forced to live under a false identity and, as a consequence, don't have the freedoms that most of us enjoy.

The government has rightly increased the sentences that can be imposed on those found responsible for human trafficking.

But I wonder if we should be looking at this in a different way if we are to successfully tackle illegal immigration.

Those concerned come here to work. There is a ready market for those people who are prepared to work long hours at rates which are below the national minimum wage and without the protections that many of us now take for granted, while employers avoid their responsibility for welfare provision, safety requirements or paying tax or national insurance contributions.

Surely the answer is to stop the demand for workers who are here illegally.

The great irony is that we know where many of these people are working.

Late at night they can be found cleaning the offices of multi-national companies and even I'm sure of some Government Departments.

Around Westminster we could visit some of the major hotels and restaurants and we would almost certainly find illegal immigrants at work.

The young men who died recently under the wheels of the 7.03 from Hereford to London showed the extent to which immigrant labour is used in our fields. Visit East Anglia, the Vale of Evesham or any other fruit and vegetable growing area at this time of year and you will come across gangs a hundred strong hard at work – many of them will be here illegally.

There is a solution. It is to make the farmer; the hotel or restaurant owner; the multi-national company; the Government Department; or whoever the ultimate beneficiary is, responsible for the legal status of the people they have working on their premises or on their land. Not some agency to which the buck can be passed, but the organisation that creates the demand for the labour in the first place.

There should be a strict liability offence subject to an automatic fine of £2,000 for each illegal immigrant found at work.

To enforce this special squads will need to be set up with the aim of targeting those areas of employment and locations where we know that most work by illegal immigrants takes place.

Some will say that this is an over reaction. And I can even now hear the protestations coming from the Institute of Directors and the CBI because it will be their members in the firing line not some ‘here today gone tomorrow' employment agency which operates on the borders of legality itself.

But if we are to be serious about tackling illegal immigration then this is the kind of action that will be necessary.

It is also the case that it is all too easy for someone who is here illegally to receive the benefits of our public services. Nowadays someone who is here and makes an application for asylum is provided with an Application Registration Card which has their photograph and fingerprints. To stop people who are here illegally from taking advantage of the system it would be possible to require anyone registering with a doctor, school or council housing department to show they are here legally and part of the system.

By requiring them to show some documentary proof, like a national insurance number, passport, birth certificate or Application Registration Card. If they cannot do so then they would not receive services except in a clear medical emergency.

The proposals announced yesterday by the Health minister John Hutton on NHS tourism are a step in the right direction which we need to build on for example by applying it to GPs and extending it to other public services.

Legal routes to entry

As I said earlier there are three main routes to enter the U.K. legally.

The present rules relating to family re-union are I believe working satisfactorily. While their operation will need to be kept under review and monitored and I wouldn't propose any changes.

In relation to entry for the purpose of work it is essential that we attract the people and skills we need for our economy to grow and for businesses to be able to compete in the global economy.This means opening up opportunities to come here and work to those who can make a positive contribution to the economy of the U.K.

The number of work permits issued has increased significantly over recent years from 38,000 in 1996; 102,000 in 2000; and 140,000 in 2001.

This is partly in reflection of our growing economy but it is also a consequence of the skills deficit which is occurring in a number of key areas.

The one area not adequately covered by the awarding of work permits is that of low skilled or no skilled jobs and yet these are the very jobs that are often filled by illegal immigrants. It is vital that they are bought within the managed and controlled regime that comes with the issuing of work permits.

It is important to ensure that work permits are issued to those individuals who are highly motivated and who want to make a real investment in the U.K.

We need to use this managed route into work as a way to gaining public support for the immigration process which is why I put forward the proposal that the number of work permits issued each year would vary in order to keep within the overall limit on immigration set annually by Parliament.

I know there are some who argue that we should not offer work here in the U.K. because developing countries will lose some of their most talented and able individuals.

But these are people who want to leave. Of course the support we give to these countries through aid, debt write off and trade justice may mean that in the longer term people in this situation would wish to stay.

At present they see their future elsewhere and we shouldn't lose sight of the valuable source of income to developing countries that comes from people sending back money to their families.

I.M.F. figures show that developing countries receive more than 60 billion dollars a year in remittances. This is 6 billion dollars more than the net official aid they receive from all the OECD countries.

Asylum seekers

Over the past few years it has been the issue of asylum seekers that has dominated public debate, although often the term is used as short-hand for the whole question of immigration.

Some of the proposals I have already outlined will I believe go a long way towards alleviating people's concern whilst being fair and balanced.

However, we cannot leave the present asylum regime as it is.

The 1951 Geneva Convention on refugees was introduced in the light of the painful failure to help many of the Jews seeking to escape from Nazi persecution and in order to offer assistance to those escaping the tyranny of the communist regimes. It was extended in 1967.

The Convention and its 1967 protocol were right for their time but they are inadequate to deal with the new situation we face.

These well meaning pieces of international law have for many become the only way in which they can hope to enter most rich countries.

The scale of demand that we are now seeing was totally unforeseen by the Convention or its protocol. Most applicants for asylum here in the U.K. and elsewhere in Europe are not escaping persecution or torture but are simply trying to get a better life for themselves and their family. But the number of unfounded applications distorts the whole system, to such an extent that it loses credibility and turns the anger of the public against all people seeking asylum including those who are fleeing from persecution or torture.

So we need a new international agreement which reflects the needs and demands of the 21st century. Globalisation means that a world wide solution needs to be found.

The United Nations should take the lead. In this context, recent proposals put forward by Ruud Lubbers the U.N.'s high commissioner for refugees need to be further developed.

There needs to be a new international asylum settlement. One which deals with asylum seekers near to their country of origin – surely better than expecting them to make a dangerous journey of thousands of miles often with the assistance of criminal gangs to get to the U.K. or other E.U. countries before make a claim for asylum.

For those who still arrive in the U.K. or elsewhere in the European Union the UNHCR proposes separating out groups that are misusing the system – these would be those coming from countries that produce hardly any genuine refugees. They would be sent to reception centres within the E.U. and those judged not to have a valid claim sent straight home.

For the limited number of recognised refugees these would be shared between E.U. states with each taking its fair share.

This proposal needs to be built on to cover all applications not just from the ‘safe' white list of countries.

But the wheels of diplomacy move slowly and it will be some time before any new system is put in place. In the meantime we must operate under the existing regime.

The government has already made changes which I believe will improve the situation. The network of induction, accommodation, reporting and removal centres will ensure quicker processing and tracking of claims and swift removal of those who have no right to stay.

There are however two further changes to the asylum system that should be made.

The first is to ensure that within the E.U. all countries agree a common definition as to the meaning of refugee under the 1951 Convention. This should be treated as a political priority in particular ensuring that the French and German governments adopt the present draft directive which includes in the definition non-state agents of persecution as a factor giving rise to an asylum claim. This conflicts with the present position in both France and Germany where only state persecution is recognised.

Any new definition must deny the protection of asylum to those who themselves have been involved in acts of terror or persecution.

A growing area of abuse is the failure on the part of the asylum seeker to provide any form of documentation.

The latest Home Office figures show that some 80% of port asylum applicants and 90% of in-country applicants failed to present any identity or travel documentation.

Whilst recognising that it can be difficult in exceptional cases when fleeing persecution to obtain proper documentation according to the Home Affairs Select Committee it is clear that many asylum seekers are advised by traffickers to destroy whatever documents they may have precisely with a view to making their return more difficult. This needs to be tackled head-on. Anyone applying for asylum without documentation should be presumed to be making an unfounded application.

Consideration should also be given to dealing with such applicants through a fast track procedure. This would not be aimed at discriminating against people in such a position but recognition that the practical considerations are different compared to someone with documentation and an acknowledgment that this is a loophole which is presently being exploited and that must be closed at the earliest opportunity.

Conclusion

As Michael Walzer the philosopher recently said to someone from the developing world, affluent and free countries are like elite universities and as a result are besieged by applicants but they cannot admit them all.

The challenge is to combine humanitarian purposes with the economic and quality of life benefits that can come from immigration to those who presently live in the U.K. as well as those who wish to come here.

I believe that the ideas I've outlined today will go some way towards meeting this challenge.