Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Asylum, Kenya Attack/Middle East and Fire Dispute.
Asylum
The PMOS said that the Home Office had put out some asylum figures from July to September this morning. The press release from Beverley Hughes stated: "These figures are not satisfactory and demonstrate that we continue to take more than our fair share of claimants with an unfounded asylum claim. This underlines why it was so important to get the latest legislation through parliament and why those who try to stop us from improving the end to end system are so wrong, even though it will take time for these improvements to feed through and make a difference."
In answer to questions the PMOS said that figures showed that applications had risen by 11% from the last quarter to 22,560. Initial decisions were 4% higher than the previous quarter. The PMOS added that given the increase in the number of applications the backlog had gone up slightly. A record number of failed asylum seekers were removed in the period - just over 3,500 - which was the highest in Europe, but there was obviously more that we needed to do. We were also on target in relation to our initial decisions made within two months and were now dealing with 77% of cases. The PMOS said that he wasn’t pretending that these figures painted a good picture because obviously they didn’t, but we did believe that our strategy was beginning to grip and that over time the root and branch reforms that we were putting in place would deliver the improvements that we wanted to see.
The PMOS went through some of the measures that we had introduced to reduce the pull factor into the UK which these figures pre-dated. He pointed to the recent decision to impose visas on those coming to the UK from Zimbabwe. This was the largest individual country increase - up 56% to 2,105. Early indications showed that that was having a real effect. We now had the presumption that the ten applicant countries in relation to EU enlargement were safe countries, so there would be a presumption from now against claimants from those countries. He said that he didn’t have the actual figure, but the number of applications ran into the thousands.
The PMOS also pointed to our deal with the French to protect our borders and the big increase in security fencing patrols at Frethun and the joint immigration controls at Calais. The number of clandestines discovered at Dollands Moor, which was on the other side of the channel from Frethun, had dropped from a high of around 400 in the spring to only 3 in October.
He also drew journalists’ attention to the National Immigration and Asylum Act. It ended the presumption of support for those who didn’t claim asylum at the first opportunity and tackled the issue of benefit shopping by preventing those who already had support and residency rights in other EU states from approaching local authorities in the UK for housing and other benefits. It also ended routine granting of ELR to Afghans, but we were also announcing today a further measure to end the policy of Exceptional Leave to Remain which had been another pull factor. Over time, a policy which by definition was exceptional had become unexceptional, and it had been granted too often in cases where people had wanted to stay on to do a higher education course for example. So we were bringing in a tighter criteria.
He said that ELR was being replaced with a new policy of humanitarian protection for those who had protection needs but were not covered under the 1951 Refugee Convention. We envisaged that fewer unsuccessful asylum applicants would qualify for this, or for discretionary leave which the Home Secretary would still have the power to grant from those who currently qualified for exceptional leave.
Essentially, we were not sitting here pretending that these statistical figures that we were putting out today were satisfactory because they were not. Nevertheless, we believed that a significant raft of measures that had been put in place during the period, namely the Act, the visas, the presumption against ten applicant countries, further measures on exceptional leave to remain, would over time deliver the improvements that we wanted to see. We had always been honest about this issue. The challenge presented by migration and asylum shopping was global and not unique to this country. They were shared over the world. The whole issue of globalisation, in which people could travel huge distances quickly, provided real challenges for us and we had to keep responding to them.
Asked whether the Government was simply ‘tinkering around the edges’ and what the impact abolishing Exceptional Leave to Remain would have on the figures, the PMOS replied that he didn’t have the precise figures, but said that 5 years ago 10% of people who claimed ELR were granted it - and that was now up to about 25%. Often it was difficult to remove particular groups of failed asylum seekers. The proportion of claimants granted ELR in 1997 for example were 3115, up now to just under 20,000 in 2001. On current trends, the figures for 2002 looked broadly similar. We expected that this would reduce the rate from 25% at the moment to around 10%.
Put to him by the Express that there was a giant hole in the Government’s case since we hadn’t provided an alternative target to the 30,000 initial target, the PMOS said he didn’t have the figure to hand and the mutual past history on the subject had not been the happiest. Clearly removals were a difficult issue. We were removing more people than anyone else in Europe and figures were at a record level now, but clearly we needed to do more - which was why with these end to end changes in the system - you had to look at the issue of the detention centres for example. This was not just about Oakington but also other sites in the process of planning permission applications. It showed the challenge that we faced. We acknowledged people’s concerns over where these centres were going to be sited, but you couldn’t will the ends without having the means.
Asked what the essential difference was between ELR and humanitarian protection, the PMOS said that humanitarian protection would be granted to those who we regarded as generally in need of international protection. It would cover those who, if removed, would suffer a real risk of the death penalty, torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or other serious threat to life or person. Under the existing policy ELR might be granted to unsuccessful asylum seekers where there were compelling or compassionate reasons to stay.
Put to him that if asylum seekers were facing death when they returned to their country of origin then they should be granted asylum anyway, the PMOS replied that the whole point was that ELR related to refugees who didn’t qualify under the Convention. The issue here was that ELR had actually been unexceptional as too many people had been granted leave to remain where we would regard it as inappropriate - where, for example, these humanitarian reasons were not necessarily met, they were there for other reasons like completing education courses. On the detail of the history of ELR he referred journalists to the Home Office.
Kenya Attack/Middle East
Asked why the UK hadn’t been warned about potential attacks in Kenya when we were supposed to be sharing intelligence information with Australia who had, according to reports, warned its citizens of a possible threat, the PMOS said that we continued to keep our travel advice under constant review. As the Prime Minister had said in his speech to the Lord Mayor’s Banquet, the Government would take action where there was information relating to a specific threat. That action could take many different forms, such as the issuing of alerts or taking pre-emptive action against individuals. We remained in constant touch with our intelligence partners about threats to our interests and those of our citizens. We were aware of what the Australian Foreign Minister had said regarding the attacks in Kenya and we would continue to remain in very close contact with the Australian authorities about ongoing threats.
Pressed repeatedly as to whether the intelligence information which had been made available to the Australians had been shared with the UK, the PMOS said that of course we shared information about threats with the Australians. That went without saying. However, he was not going to get into detail about all the intelligence material which crossed the desks of intelligence officers. Our travel guidance for people travelling to Kenya had contained generic advice relating to Kenya stating that UK nationals should be aware of indiscriminate attacks on civilian targets in public places, including tourist sites. Asked if he would agree that the Australians appeared to be ‘windier’ about issuing warnings than we were, the PMOS said that he had very little more to add to what he had already said. We continued to keep our travel advice under constant review. The Prime Minister had set out very clearly in his speech to the Lord Mayor’s Banquet the challenges facing Governments in relation to the ongoing threat from international terrorism. We were fully aware of what they were and would continue to respond accordingly.
Asked if he was confirming or denying the fact that we had received intelligence about a potential terrorist attack in Kenya, the PMOS said that it had never been our policy to comment on specific intelligence, and he was not going to start doing so now. Asked if this was a denial, the PMOS said that it was what it was. Put to him that it was better for the information to be ‘beaten out of him now’ rather than over the weekend as had happened following the attacks in Bali, the PMOS said that intelligence issues were complex. We would respond to questions in the way we thought was appropriate. Pressed repeatedly as to whether the Australians had passed on the information they had received about Kenya to the UK authorities, the PMOS repeated that we remained in close contact with the Australians. He had nothing further to add on this matter.
Asked if it was time for a review of the way travel advice was issued to tourists in the light of the attacks in Bali and Kenya, the PMOS said that the Government would continue to do whatever it had to do and would calibrate any response it had to make, mindful, as always, of the need to act as appropriate and not to do the terrorists’ job for them. Asked whether the FCO’s guidance relating to travel to Kenya had changed since the attacks yesterday, the PMOS said no.
Asked if the Government agreed with Israel’s analysis of the attacks - that Al Qaida was to blame, the PMOS said that investigations were still ongoing, but he was not disputing it. Asked about dealing with Al Qaida and Iraq, the PMOS said that, as the Prime Minister had reiterated many times in the past, the threat from global terrorism had not gone away. Fanatics continued to think nothing of killing themselves and as many other people as possible as the same time. Equally, we had to confront the threat from Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) held by unstable states, such as Iraq. The two were not mutually exclusive. Both were threats which had to be countered, albeit in different ways. Asked if we would accept the idea that global terrorism and WMD were connected to the issue of Israel, the PMOS said we acknowledged Israel’s deep concern that its citizens were being targeted in this way and their desire for justice. Equally, it was important for people to recognise that the world was a dangerous place and that global terrorism was just as much a threat to other countries as it was to Israel and the US, for example. As John Reid had underlined in his press briefing yesterday, we remained committed to doing what we could to try to move the Middle East Peace Process forward. Everyone recognised that the vision set out by President Bush - of an Israel secure within its own borders and a viable Palestinian state - was the way forward. Obviously the forthcoming elections in the region were a factor at the moment. However, that did not mean that people were not focussing on this important issue. They were - not least the Prime Minister. Asked if he was urging Israel to be cautious in laying the blame for the attacks in Kenya on Al Qaida in light of what he had said, the PMOS said no. He was not preaching to Israel at all. He was simply stating a fact. Asked whether a conference on the Middle East Peace Process might take place in London before Christmas, the PMOS said that there was nothing new to flag up at this stage.
Asked if any thought was being given to the provision of additional security around airports following the missile attack on an Israeli plane yesterday, the PMOS said it went without saying that security arrangements were reviewed on a regular basis. Any adjustments that had to be made would be made as necessary.
Asked to verify today’s report in the Times which suggested that the Syrian President would be visiting Downing Street, the PMOS said that if we had anything to say about any visitors, we would do so at the appropriate time.
Fire Dispute
Asked for further detail about the inquiry into joint control rooms, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister had asked for a report into how joint control rooms had operated during the fire strike. In parallel, a COBRA report was due to be published next week which would be a factual assessment of the way the situation had been handled during the current eight-day strike. It would be a dry, statistical analysis which would focus on the number of fires and hoax calls that had been made, for example. In answer to further questions, the PMOS said that they were separate pieces of work, although both were being co-ordinated by COBRA. The report to be published next week would contain data provided by COBRA, but would be formatted in a way that could be made public. The report which had been ordered by the Prime Minister would be an assessment by COBRA, in consultation with the military, fire officers and others, which would focus on how well joint control rooms had operated during the fire dispute. Asked whether the parallel report would provide a ‘graphic comparison’ of how a smaller force of fire-fighters could do the job, the PMOS said that the report would be a statistical, fairly dry analysis of what had happened during this eight-day strike. It would not be a comparative report but a factual account.
Asked the point of an inquiry into the operation of joint control rooms when it was clear that such centres did not, in fact, exist inasmuch as they were not taking police or ambulance calls, the PMOS said that, on the contrary, there were shared arrangements with other emergency services. The police had been working effectively alongside the military in these joint control rooms. In certain instances, police cars had reached the scene of an incident before the arrival of a Green Goddess and had then advised the military that their assistance was not needed. To say that the military and the police were not working together was simply wrong. The PMOS said it was right that there had been a focus on the issue of joint control rooms. However, there was also a whole range of other issues which, as Professor Bain had recommended, ought to be scrutinised, including shift patterns and crewing arrangements. Put to him that the Prime Ministerial report on joint control rooms would not ‘compare like with like’, the PMOS drew journalists’ attention to a Home Office report which had been carried in the Times this morning which stated that joint shared arrangements had the potential to improve the response of the services to multi-service incidents. The report also recommended that fire authorities should work together to eliminate control rooms which handled less than 20,000 incidents per year.
Asked if it was fair to say that Ministers were now less fearful of the army’s inability to cope during this and any future fire strike, the PMOS reminded journalists that we had never said that the service provided by the military and Green Goddesses would replace the regular fire service. However, it was clear that the military were coping well within their capacity, although there was still a little under 24 hours to go. This was a strike which need never have happened. The decision to hold it had been taken by the FBU. Obviously we hoped that they would call off future strikes because, in this day and age, achieving your ends through industrial action was clearly not going to succeed. Ultimately it was their call. If there were another strike, the responsibility for it would be theirs and the Government stood ready to continue with its contingency plans which, thus far, had worked well thanks, in the main, to the armed services.
delicious
digg
facebook
