Examination of Witnesses (Questions 380-399)
MS NICOLA
ROGERS AND
MRS SALLY
TARSHISH
TUESDAY 4 FEBRUARY 2003
380. Did you want to add anything, Mrs Tarshish?
(Mrs Tarshish) Yes, I would. It think it is very important
to understand that just because we are a volunteer group that
we have a vested interest in such that might lead us into pursuing
avenues that would bias or make us not see somehow things in a
clear light. I do not think that is true. I think that our membership
have experiences and have seen injustices, bearing in mind that
our organisation is focused on detention. Our membership has very
little to do with people out in the community. So, we are talking
about a very small proportion of people. We do see injustices
and they are very disturbing.
381. What confidence do you have, particularly
if I may put the question to Ms Rogers, in the quality of initial
decisions made by the Home Office in asylum cases?
(Ms Rogers) I think the experience of our members
is that the quality of initial decision-making is poor and that
is borne out to some extent by the number of successful appeals
there are against initial decisions. I think the reason why initial
decision making may be poor is lack of training and the quality
of persons who engage in that initial decision making. It is my
understanding that there is not even a requirement now for a person
to be an asylum case worker in the Home Office, a person who determines
asylum claims, to have A levels. In my submission, that would
explain a lot why initial decision making may not be of the highest
quality. Furthermore, it is not necessarily based on a wealth
of information that is accurate and up to date and that of course
will affect the quality of decision making.
382. Because the people involved, if I understood
you correctly, do not possess A levels?
(Ms Rogers) It is not because they do not possess
A levels. A levels are not after all the answer to everything
and I am not suggesting that people who do not have A levels are
not necessarily—
383. There have been prime ministers who have
not had A levels in more recent times.
(Ms Rogers) Absolutely, but I am concerned here about
the criteria and the training and the level of education of people
who undertake these jobs. Asylum claims are legally and factually
extremely complex and that has to be borne in mind. Whilst A levels
may not be the answer to everything, it may demonstrate the extent
to which the Government is prepared to put resources into this,
expensive resources because people who are better educated generally
speaking command higher salaries.
384. In an nutshell, what you are saying is
that those who take the initial decision are not really up to
it simply because presumably the cases are so complex that it
is difficult for a young person—presumably they are young
as well—to understand the background and the circumstances
as to why the particular person is in the United Kingdom in the
first place.
(Ms Rogers) Yes. I am also suggesting that a lack
of training and, furthermore, a lack of up-to-date and accurate
information adds to poor quality decision making.
385. If we take, for example, those claiming
asylum from Iraq, surely anyone employed at the Home Office in
such cases would know that that is a country ruled by terror.
Where would be the difficulties of understanding, if you take
that particular country as an example?
(Ms Rogers) Taking the example of Iraq, on the face
of it, an Iraqi Kurd would have a well-founded fear of persecution,
but there do come complexities depending on where, for instance,
the asylum claimant comes from within Iraq. There are suggestions,
for instance, that if you come from the Kurdish autonomous zone,
you could receive safety in that zone and then you get into quite
difficult legal questions about whether or not the Kurdish autonomous
zone is capable of offering state-like protection within the meaning
of refugee law and actually it becomes quite a difficult question
to answer. I wish that all Kurds from Iraq would be offered asylum
straight off and the public might feel that they are being offered
asylum straight off. In fact, they are being rejected with quite
some frequency.
386. Having said to you that it is an obvious
case, surely it is the duty of the authorities in the United Kingdom
to make sure that those who claim what they are not possibly,
for all we know, agents who have been sent in by the regime in
the same way as in the 1930s. The security authorities in the
United Kingdom had to be absolutely sure—
Chairman: Mr Winnick, where is this taking
us?
David Winnick: Where it is taking us
is that, even in cases like Iraq, there is a necessity, is there
not—and this is my question to you—to make sure that
the people are what they claim to be?
(Ms Rogers) Absolutely but, if I understood your line
of questioning before, you were asking me about quality of decision
making. That decision about whether or not someone would represent
a breach, of national security is a very, very technical question
and I would suggest that someone would have to be highly qualified
in order to make that assessment.
387. Coming back to the point, even in such
cases, it is not necessarily quite obvious that the application
should be successful.
(Ms Rogers) It might be obvious to you and I but,
in legal terms, it may be more complicated and certainly the decision
making of the Home Office demonstrates that it is made more complicated
by the manner in which the decisions are made.
388. The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum
Bill makes provision, as you know, for an advisory panel on country
information and that is made up, as I understand it, of between
10 and 20 individuals appointed by the Home Secretary to consider
and make recommendations to the Secretary of State about information
regarding countries abroad where people are claiming asylum. How
confident are you, Ms Rogers, about the accuracy of country information
collected by the Home Office?
(Ms Rogers) I am concerned about country of origin
information for two reasons. Often country of origin information,
by its very nature, is out of date and I appreciate that there
is a difficulty in obtaining absolutely up-to-date information.
However, the experience of the past shows that the Home Office
has been complacent in relying on old data and old information
and what has been the experience in the past is that often refugee
flows happen before information filters out of the country suggesting
that there is a problem. Sometimes because of the regime, censorship
within the regime and lack of access by independent organisations.
Sometimes it is difficult to get information in and out and I
do appreciate the problems that IND might have in that regard.
However, they would help themselves enormously, in my submission,
if they would better source their information and give a more
accurate and rounded picture in some cases of what the situation
in a country actually is.
389. What information could be given to the
Home Office, if you take, for example, Algeria, regarding the
situation in that country which would help to identify those who
are genuinely seeking freedom from terror but also those, on the
other hand—hence it seems to me, if not you will tell me,
a very complex situation—who are terrorists in Algeria and
are wanted by the Algerian Government for terrorist acts?
(Ms Rogers) It is very difficult for me to identify
information. Really, you had better ask the security services
what information they need in order to identify terrorists. I
am afraid to say that I am not an expert on how to identify a
terrorist. However, in respect of how to identify an asylum seeker,
a claim must obviously be looked at against the most up-to-date
and accurate background information about the country of origin.
390. Do you and your organisation take the view—if
this is a leading question, you will soon tell me—that if
someone has been engaged in terrorism and is wanted by the Governments
of those countries where they have been engaged, allegedly, in
terrorism, they should be able to seek refuge in the United Kingdom?
(Ms Rogers) I take the view that a person who faces
inhuman or degrading treatment or torture in their country of
origin should not be returned, that it would be a breach of the
UK's obligations as a result of the European Convention on Human
Rights. That is an obligation that we cannot derogate from. In
the UK, there is extensive anti-terrorism legislation. If a person
is even engaged in collecting information that might lead to terrorist
acts either in the UK or outside, they can be prosecuted. It has
been our organisation's position that the answer is not to send
them back if they would face inhuman or degrading treatment or
torture, the answer is to prosecute them if the evidence exists
against them.
391. We can put that question to the Home Office;
they may have a number of legal reasons why that would not be
possible. So, you do not give much credibility to those who say
that, for a number of years, Britain has been, in some respects
at least, a safe haven for terrorism?
(Ms Rogers) I do not accept that. We cannot derogate
in any way from our international obligations. Those are obligations
we signed up to in 1950 and indeed the UK was part of drawing
up the European Convention on Human Rights. It is abhorrent to
suggest that a civilised democratic society would wish to send
a person to face inhuman or degrading treatment or torture or
indeed death. As I said, it has been long held the view of my
organisation that if there is evidence that those persons had
been engaged or would be engaged in terrorist activities, then
by all means prosecute them.
392. I want to ask you about those people who
are sent back under the relevant legislation where it is stated
by the Home Office that claims are clearly unfounded and they
are sent back while an appeal is outstanding, and apparently there
are a number of countries with which you will be more familiar
than I where this category arises: Cyprus, the Czech Republic,
Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland and one or
two other countries. Do you believe there is any justification
for the Home Officer saying, "These are not countries were
people are going to be persecuted, they are not countries where
the Government/authorities will engage in torture and all the
rest of it, so why should these people be allowed to stay in the
United Kingdom endlessly"?
(Ms Rogers) Legally, I think there is a real problem
with non-suspensive appeals and sending back people in the manner
in which you describe and that is that each case has to be looked
at on its merits and what I am concerned about is presumptions
and rubber-stamping. As we have talked about quality of decision-making,
if a lower grade civil servant is given a presumption that a case
is going to be clearly unfounded because the person comes from
a certain country, the examination into that claim would probably
be much less rigorous than if there is no presumption automatically
applied. In my submission, non-suspensive appeals are extremely
dangerous. They are dangerous because, even if only one person
were sent back and were tortured or suffered ill-treatment in
a situation which could have been avoided by having a suspensive
appeal, that is one person too many.
393. Can you quote a single case where a person
has been sent back and has been subject to torture?
(Ms Rogers) I do not have—
394. A single case, Ms Rogers.
(Ms Rogers) This legislation has only been in operation
for a very, very short period of time. I do not have that data
at the moment. However, I can give you an example from last week
where someone was sent to Romania who was in fact Turkish. Why
was he sent to Romania when he was in fact Turkish? Because he
was wearing the same coloured jumper as the man who should have
been removed. Unfortunately because everything went so quickly,
his legal advisers could not stop him being removed and, when
he arrived in Romania, the Romanian authorities said, "Sorry,
this person—"
Miss Widdecombe
395. Was he tortured in Romania, Ms Rogers?
(Ms Rogers) He was not tortured but there are—
396. The question was whether there has been
any instance that you know of where somebody was removed, presuming
that they were removed to where they were intended to be removed,
not a bureaucratic error but where they were intended to be removed,
which has resulted in torture, death or imprisonment. That was
the question which I have enlarged slightly.
(Ms Rogers) As I said in answer to the question, these
non-suspensive appeals have not been in operation very long at
all and that information has not filtered through to me.
Miss Widdecombe: Then the answer is "no".
David Winnick
397. Ms Rogers, I wonder if I could just make
this point. It is very difficult to believe that anyone sent back
to the countries that I have mentioned—Cyprus, the Czech
Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia and others—is going to
face torture and execution. Will you accept that?
(Ms Rogers) I do not accept it because it is not simply
the case that a person may face torture or inhuman or degrading
treatment at the hands of their own authorities, they may face
that at the hands of non-state agents and it may be the fact that—
398. But they could face that in Britain, for
heaven's sake. There are gangsters, hoodlums and mobsters in every
country. That is not the issue, is it?
(Ms Rogers) Yes and the authorities are able to protect
them in the UK. It is the case that, in some countries, the authorities
may not be able to protect them and that is a question of evidence
that has to be looked at in the individual case.
399. Do you believe there is some justification
for the Home Office to say that those whose applications have
been refused who come from countries which I have mentioned where
torture and execution do not take place should be sent back as
soon as possible because the conclusion has been reached that
they have no claim for asylum whatsoever in the United Kingdom?
Do you accept that there is a case for the Home Office to work
on that basis?
(Ms Rogers) After the due process of law and, in my
submission—
|
