Examination of Witnesses (Questions 620-639)
BEVERLEY HUGHES
MP, MR BILL
JEFFREY AND
MS ANGELA
RAMLAGAN-SINGH
TUESDAY 4 MARCH 2003
Miss Widdecombe
620. But government is accountable, you would
agree?
(Beverley Hughes) Yes.
Miss Widdecombe: And therefore, if you
are asked how and why you arrived at something, you as a government
are accountable, but thank you.
Chairman: I think we have done that subject
to death, so let us move on. Mrs Dean?
Mrs Dean
621. Can I return to the issue of withdrawal
of support for in-country asylum applicants. What is your response
to claims that this is resulting in destitution?
(Beverley Hughes) The intention behind that measure
is not to cause destitution but it is trying to change people's
behaviour. Our monitoring for some time has suggested, if you
look at the way in which people claim asylum, where they claim
asylum I think well over 60% of claims are not at port, they are
in-country, and it is certainly the view from many of our caseworkers
and people making the decisions, on the basis of their interviews,
that many people claiming asylum have been in-country for some
time and are therefore supporting themselves or being supported,
and we believe that it is right to expect people, if they are
fleeing persecution, to want to claim asylum at the earliest opportunity
and that largely will be the port when you enter a country that
you regard as safe which is going hopefully to provide you with
some refuge. So whilst I accept that this is a tough measure I
do not accept that its intention is to make people destitute,
or necessarily whether it will make people destitute, but it is
about changing behaviour and making sure that people understand
that the asylum system is for people fleeing persecution and not
for people seeking support to stay here for some other reason.
622. I can well understand that if people have
been here several weeks or months they have obviously been able
to support themselves in that time. What I am concerned about
is those who apply a day or two after having arrived here. Are
you prepared to reconsider how we deal with those?
(Beverley Hughes) If somebody applies
a day or two after and can give the caseworker information that
supports a credible reason as to why that happened, preferably
but not necessarily with some verifiable information as to how
and when they came into the country to confirm the day or zone,
then they will be given support and that is within the guidance
to the caseworkers, but if people cannot give that credible story,
and the caseworkers believe on the basis of the screening that
their story is not credible, not true, and they probably are someone
who has been here longer than that, then they will be denied support.
(Mr Jeffrey) To an extent this is a matter which is
coming full course because the provision in Section 55 does have
an exception where the result of withdrawing support would be
inconsistent with that of the European Convention, and the High
Court has in the judgment that is currently being contested in
the Court of Appeal interpreted that quite widely. I would, however,
confirm what the Minister says about the impression which our
staff who are administering this in the few weeks since it has
been introduced have which is that it would not be fair to say
that the consequence is widespread destitution.
Chairman
623. Before you move off that, I do not know
if it is widespread but there is no doubt that some have been
rendered destitute by this. Is that not true?
(Mr Jeffrey) I do not think we could confirm that
but I could certainly say that the staff I have spoken to who
are conducting the interviews in private, for example, do not
have the impression that this is a widespread issue.
624. Discard the word "widespread"—no
one is alleging that—and address the point I am making which
is that some people have been rendered destitute by this, have
they not? We have all heard interviews of people appearing to
be destitute on the radio.
(Mr Jeffrey) As I say, I do not know if one can confirm
that for sure. I was simply confirming what the Minister said
which is that the impression of our staff is that this is not
a widespread issue.
(Beverley Hughes) We have heard those interviews but
what we do not know, Chair, is how true those claims are. Certainly
as Bill Jeffrey has said, from the caseworkers themselves and
from the police with whom we consulted before the introduction
of the measure and an established means of communication whereby
we can get early notification if there are significant problems
from people arising from being on the streets, from both of those
sources the picture is that this has not led certainly to a problem
of any significance. If you are saying to me that there might
be one person who was made destitute I cannot say that that is
not true, but what I can say is that there is a view amongst the
caseworkers, and I cannot go too far along this line because some
of these cases are before the courts at the moment, which is different,
though, in terms of the stories those people came forward with,
and the length of time they were in the country and therefore
there was an impact on the decision to refuse; the caseworkers'
view was different from that which was being put by the people
themselves.
625. But I just want to check that there is
sufficient discretion built into the rules for when one of these
cases does arise for benefit to be granted?
(Beverley Hughes) The law is clear in that Home Secretary
support will not be given unless somebody has claimed as reasonably
as practically possible, but then it is the decision of the caseworker
based on the screening interview and based on the credibility
and the verifiability of the person's account as to whether that
test is met. So in that sense it is discretion in the sense that
there is a professional judgment there and this is how the system
operates on the part of the caseworker, assessing the story and
the account that the immigrant, the claimant, gives us.
626. But if you find someone who has slipped
through the system for whatever reason, is the system sufficiently
flexible for a decision against a warning benefit to be reversed,
or is it set in stone from the moment it is made?
(Beverley Hughes) Certain categories of people are
provided for and will get support—families with children
under 18, people with special needs through the local authorities.
In relation to other people, if a decision is made to deny them
support there is no appeal on this process provided for, and therefore
I have to say probably in answer to your question—
627. So the answer is no?
(Beverley Hughes) There might be a mechanism for somebody
to come back through the system but there is not an automatic
route for that to happen.
(Mr Jeffrey) The answer is if circumstances have changed
then it is open to us to take a different view but against the
criterion in the legislation, and unless someone has already observed
the legislation it does not leave the Secretary of State a great
deal of discretion.
Mrs Dean
628. Can I turn to country information? The
information collated by the Home Office on the state of countries
from which asylum seekers have come feeds into the decision-making
process. How confident are you in the accuracy of that information?
(Beverley Hughes) We do get very positive affirmation
of the quality of that information from a number of commentators.
As you know, I get many letters from MPs about particular cases—often
asking me not to remove people, as it happens—and in some
of those instances where I read the case and I have concerns I
have asked to see the country information for a number of countries,
and when I first saw it I will say to you I was very impressed.
I admit that in a sense I come to this area as a lay person, but
I had a volume of material that was very detailed and that was
drawn from a wide array of international sources. It was not opinion
given to me by the officials: it was a collation of independent
and international-sourced information. So when I first saw such
a pack of information on one particular country, I was personally
impressed by its thoroughness and its detail. Based on my own
personal experience and the feedback I get, therefore, I do accept
that our system of collating that information is a good one, and
it is information that I am told other countries abroad draw on
because of its comprehensiveness.
629. It has been suggested that a body outside
government should be involved in providing that information. Do
you believe that there is any argument for that to be done?
(Beverley Hughes) There certainly is an argument and
we had that debate during the course of the passage of the Bill.
What we thought was a better way forward, certainly in the first
instance, was to establish an advisory panel of experts and we
are in the process of doing that, and underneath that is a smaller
and more focused consultation group who will go into the detail
very thoroughly and produce advice for ministers as to the adequacy
and the comprehensiveness of the in-country information, and look
particularly at changes, at the situation in the countries, and
advise us as to how we needed to increase, perhaps, the number
of occasions where in-country information is updated and so on.
So that is the arrangement we are setting in place which will
rejoin the passage of the Bill. Certainly the issue is not set
in tablets of stone but we would rather move in that direction
and see how that works because of the fact that, as I say, the
in-country information that we use that the unit compiles is not
essentially opinion by our officials to caseworkers or to ministers:
it is a collation of independently-sourced information anyway.
630. How soon would that be implemented?
(Beverley Hughes) We hope that that panel will be
up and running later this year.
631. Can I turn now to non-suspensive appeals—a
peculiar term but there we are. On what criteria will a claim
for asylum be certified as "clearly unfounded"?
(Beverley Hughes) At the moment you know that we included
in the legislation a list of 10 countries and in relation to applications
in those countries there is a presumption that that case will
be certified in that way and we are proposing to add another seven
countries to that list. In terms of going further and looking
at criteria for other cases that are not country specific and
how the definition of "clearly unfounded" should be
made and applied, we are still working through that because I
think that is a much more difficult process to embark on. There
is a clarity that I think has been accepted by the courts about
the safe countries, and we did a lot of work with the judges establishing
the judicial systems that would back that up. In relation to unfounded
cases that are not country specific we would want to proceed very
cautiously, and we would want to try and establish some case law
on the basis of particular cases that we would have looked through
and work our way through that in a gradual way, because the system
with the safe countries has been very effective and I think that
is because of the clarity and because of the preparation we were
able to do with the administrative court. All of those issues
are more difficult with a more generic "clearly unfounded"
category, and so I think we have to proceed very carefully on
that.
632. What other grounds are you considering?
(Beverley Hughes) I think in general what we mean
by a "clearly unfounded" case is a case that on the
face of the facts has no merit but clearly the kind of different
variables that could come together in a particular case, the kind
of factors that you would be looking for, that would add up to
a defendable decision that a case was "clearly unfounded"
are many and varied, and I am saying to you really that I am not
in a position today to delineate any of those factors for you
except to say that we would want to proceed very cautiously indeed
and only move from obviously unfounded cases and build up the
case law from that point.
(Mr Jeffrey) I do not have anything very significant
to add. Certainly at one extreme there are cases which anyone
would recognise as "clearly unfounded". It is not completely
unknown for people to say they are claiming asylum because they
want a house, for example, but if one were to move beyond the
safe boundaries we have so far been operating on it will be necessary
because we intend to do that to set out quite clearly what constitutes
a "clearly unfounded" case.
633. Is not the introduction of non-suspensive
appeals denying people the right of appeal in practice?
(Beverley Hughes) No, I do not think so. Certainly
there are appeals conducted out of country. People who are denied
visas, for example, have to conduct their appeal from where they
are which is abroad, and certainly many of the legal representatives
are geared up to do that, to continue appeals when people have
been removed from a country, and I think we are dealing with cases
here where, because people have come from a country that we deem
to be safe, that is a reasonable thing to do, and I think it is
crucial in relation to this group of cases that early removal,
which is what the Committee is talking about, is part of the process.
Bob Russell
634. Minister, you made reference to 10 safe
countries in Europe. Would you accept that right across Europe
the Roma community do not consider that they are safe; they are
not protected by the state authorities; and they are suffering
from neo fascist gangs and skinheads. In those circumstances would
you not accept that the Roma community should not regard those
countries as being safe for them?
(Beverley Hughes) The definition of "safe"
is partly about the extent to which people might be subjected
to activities which clearly threaten them but it is also about
the mechanisms for policing and criminal justice and the recognition
of human rights that exist in a particular country as well. Nobody,
even people in this country or in western European countries,
can be absolutely 100% protected from criminality but the question
is whether or not those countries provide or can provide sufficient
protection and sufficient redress if people are subjected to criminality.
In all of the 10 countries that we put on the face of the Bill
and in the seven that we proposed in the Act, we believe—and
certainly as far as the 10 that was endorsed in the European Union
more generally—that those countries do have a level of infrastructure
around policing and criminal justice to be able to meet that test.
635. Would you not accept then that the Roma
community, which was persecuted by the Nazis, survived under 50
years of Communism, now find themselves threatened by the democratic
structures that you have just described; and that is particularly
the case in the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic?
(Beverley Hughes) No, I do not. I certainly acknowledge
the historic persecution in parts of Europe for large groups of
Roma people, but you have to ask the question as to whether the
situation now is one that would engage the test in the Vienna
Convention and I do not think it does. I really do not think it
does. The other question I think you need to ask yourself is:
is it a satisfactory solution to any remaining problems falling
short of persecution that perhaps numbers of Roma people might
be subject to criminality, intimidation; is it a satisfactory
solution to say that all of those people then can find a safe
haven in Western Europe rather than their own countries continuing
to work, as they are in the Czech Republic, in Poland, to consolidate
the progress they have already made in protecting certain groups,
including the Roma people, from discrimination, and marshalling
their own infrastructure, strengthening their own infrastructure,
to make sure that protection is delivered in practice? Surely
it is the latter. That is the only sustainable solution to those
kinds of issues which do not engage the Convention but, nonetheless,
maybe issues that those countries, yes, continue to need to address.
That does not mean that that satisfies the criteria for people
to come here and claim asylum under the Convention.
636. Your confidence will not be shared by the
Roma community. Finally, Minister, people already in this country,
whose home countries will be joining the European Union in the
not too distant future, why deport those people from settled roots
in the UK when in a matter of a year or so they will have the
legal right to come here anyway?
(Beverley Hughes) Many of those people do not have
settled roots in the UK. They might have been here for two or
three years but not for longer periods of time, and some much
shorter periods of time. In fact it was only last summer when
we were getting peak numbers of people from Poland and the Czech
Republic coming through the port. I actually went to the port
and witnessed what were then significant numbers of people coming
from the Czech Republic on coaches at the immigration desk claiming
asylum. The distinction is, yes, when those countries join the
European Union we have said that from the point of accession that
people's rights to come will be operationalised—provided
they can support themselves, and provided they have work then
they can come. That is completely different than coming in claiming
asylum, getting that support, trammelling up the whole system
in a period of assessing that claim, going through an appeal,
and the expense of removal. That is completely different. We have
to continue to deal with claims for asylum with people from accession
countries in that way, in order to make the progress I outlined
at the beginning.
637. Right to midnight on the last day?
(Beverley Hughes) Yes.
(Mr Jeffrey) Could I just add a point about the legislation
because I think it is worth bearing in mind that what the legislation
does is to create a presumption that people from these countries
will not have a well founded claim for asylum. That is a presumption
they can displace. In individual cases it is certainly not the
case that we are ignoring what they are saying to us.
David Winnick
638. I want to return for a moment to the questions
of destitution put to you by the Chairman. We all know from our
postbag on the doorstep and in the media that asylum seekers are
not the most popular group of people in the country at the moment;
but is it really a satisfactory state of affairs where people,
in fact, could be denied all benefits and, unless they have friends
or resort to criminal action, would find themselves in a position
where they were virtually starving?
(Beverley Hughes) I think I have covered that point.
There is provision in the legislation for the most vulnerable
groups. The legislation itself does not remove any obligations
if the situation of a person lays down the test of Article 3 of
ECHR, in which instance local authorities would still be able
to provide some support.
639. In what way. If someone is denied benefit
do they go to the local authority? Who would provide that, the
Social Services Department?
(Beverley Hughes) It is possible under the legislation
for the local authority to provide residual support, if the situation
is such that it could be established that the threshold in Article
3, which is a high threshold, would be engaged.
|
