Examination of Witnesses (Questions 372-379)
MS NICOLA
ROGERS AND
MRS SALLY
TARSHISH
TUESDAY 4 FEBRUARY 2003
Chairman
372. Good morning. This is the second session
of evidence that we have taken from our short inquiry into immigration
removals. The main aim is to look for ways of making it (a) more
efficient and (b) more humane. First of all, can I ask each of
the witnesses to say who they represent and something about the
organisation they represent, starting with Ms Rogers.
(Ms Rogers) I am Nicola Rogers. I am
on the Executive Committee of the Immigration Law Practitioners'
Association. We represent over 1,100 mainly immigration practitioners
who work in the field of immigration and asylum.
(Mrs Tarshish) I am the Honorary Secretary for the
Association of Visitors to Immigration Detainees which is a registered
charity founded in 1994. We have a membership of 18 volunteer
groups which represents around 300 individuals who visit the nine
removal centres in the UK with the exception of Northern Ireland.
We are here presenting and representing the experiences of our
membership and welcome the opportunity to make such recommendations
as we hope you will accept.
373. Do you receive any public funding?
(Mrs Tarshish) No, we are privately run. We get money
from various trusts but we receive no government funding.
374. Are you a charity?
(Mrs Tarshish) Yes, we are a registered charity.
David Winnick
375. Ms Rogers, can I ask you about the organisation,
the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association. You said to the
Chairman a moment ago that you represent the interests of some
1,100 immigration practitioners, but what do you mean by "immigration
practitioners"? Do you mean solicitors?
(Ms Rogers) Solicitors, barristers and people who
are interested in the law. Some of our members are students, for
instance, or law professors and such like, but most of them are
solicitors and barristers.
376. Do you have some sort of test to make sure
that such people are bona fide because we have heard claims in
previous times that some of those who practise immigration appeals
are not necessarily aboveboard, if I can put it like that?
(Ms Rogers) In order to be a member of our organisation,
if a person is practising in law, they must be regulated by the
Law Society or the Bar Council or other regulatory body and that
is our very strict criteria for membership. So, all our members
are regulated; they must be part of a regulated profession.
377. I am glad that we have that on record because
my question, I should explain, was not a reflection on the organisation
but I wanted it to be made absolutely clear what you have just
said. Can I ask you as a sort of preface to the questions which
I shall be asking, are you concerned at the moment about opinion
regarding asylum seekers? We know that the issue is now very high
profile, that the press, particularly the tabloids, have articles
about the subject virtually every day. Do you have any concern
about that?
(Ms Rogers) I think as an organisation we have real
concern. We have concern that the level of debate is such that
often the information that is around is inaccurate, based on false
premises and there is a real concern that the public is in fact
not having a debate, if there is a debate as such, at an appropriate
level.
378. Could I put that question to Mrs Tarshish.
(Mrs Tarshish) I think we would support what Nicola
is saying here, that there is not a proper debate and the use
of terminology being bantered around and confusing the general
public as to what the real issues are is very disturbing and makes
disturbing reading. If we are going to approach this in a rational
and reasonable manner, we must make sure that the terms of reference
we use are clear, understood and shared by all of us.
379. What would your responses be—it is
not my view as a matter of fact; if it were, I would say so, but
to be the devil's advocate for a moment—to those who say,
"You are bound to say what you have just said because you
have a sort of in-built bias in favour of those who are seeking
asylum in the United Kingdom"?
(Ms Rogers) Inevitably, practitioners who come into
contact with asylum seekers and immigrants on a daily basis will
have a particular perspective. Whether we are biased, I am not
sure that that is a charge that is well met. The fact is that
we experience on a daily basis injustices to our clients. If those
clients were in the criminal justice system, we might have the
same concerns. It is the injustice to them that we are concerned
about rather than that we have a particular slant to portray.
| 
