|
Oral evidence Taken before the Home Affairs Committee on Wednesday 19 November 2003 Members present: Mr John Denham, in the Chair __________ Witnesses: BEVERLEY HUGHES, a Member of the House, Minister of State (Citizenship, Immigration and Counter-Terrorism) Home Office, MR BILL JEFFREY, Director-General, Immigration and Nationality Department (IND), and MR KEN SUTTON, Deputy Director-General, Asylum Support and Casework, IND, further examined. Q817 Chairman: Could I thank you very much for coming, Minister. The Committee has noted that this is the sixth time you have come in front of this Committee in the current calendar year. We did discuss making you an honorary member of the Committee as you come here so often! We are grateful to you. Could you, for the record, introduce yourself and your colleagues. Beverley Hughes: Yes. I think these gentlemen have been here almost as many times as I have! On my left is Bill Jeffrey, the Director-General and on my right Ken Sutton, the Deputy Director-General. Q818 Chairman: Obviously, we are particularly interested in the new legislative proposals that were announced by the Government just after the last time you came to the Committee as part of this inquiry. Can I start by asking you about the consultation around the proposals? The response we received from the Immigration Guidance Service is not untypical; they say, "The consultation document is so lacking in detail that it is impossible to respond to many of the proposals in an intelligent way." A number of consultees that we contacted when the proposals were published suggested that the short consultation period is well short of Cabinet Office guidance. I wonder, Minister, if you could justify both the alleged lack of information in the consultation proposals and also the very short period of time for consultation on them. Beverley Hughes: I do appreciate the situation that places consultees in, and I would like to make clear that any responses we receive up to and around the deadline, and indeed even just past the deadline if they can get to us quickly, we would certainly want to consider. The situation was, though, that the Home Secretary announced in May that he was asking for further policy work to be done on some of these very difficult and very technical areas, which have involved a lot of consultation anyway, both within government and with the judiciary, and it is simply the case that we were not in a position, certainly on some of the main planks of the proposal, to give sufficient detail until that point in time. Q819 Chairman: But the response that we have had from consultees is that there is still insufficient detail, for example, on the operation of the single-tier appeal system, or what might happen to judicial review for expert organisations like the Immigration Advisory Service, to, as they put it, "respond to the proposals in an intelligent way." Do you accept that there are some real difficulties for agencies in responding to the proposals that you have put forward? Beverley Hughes: What I accept is that there are real difficulties in making sure that we develop in detail a system that is workable operationally and actually achieves the policy objectives here, and indeed, we are still discussing some of that detail with colleagues in the Department of Constitutional Affairs, and indeed, they are discussing the detail with some of their stakeholders. So we have not finalised the detail of that. There are some very technical issues to be considered, and we will receive gratefully any ideas people send back to us of how they think the policy objectives that we are trying to achieve can be achieved in practice, without building in the kind of loopholes that it is all too easy to build in unless you pay real attention to that detail. Q820 Chairman: That is helpful. To some extent, of course, the detail is still in flux. Beverley Hughes: No. The policy objectives are clear. The operational details, yes. Q821 Chairman: Can you tell the Committee what the next stages are? I know you cannot anticipate the Queen's Speech, but this seems to be more relaxed these days than it used to be a few years ago, and we may be anticipating the confirmation of legislation on this area in the Queen's Speech. How long do you think it will need before the proposals, which will then be in detailed form, will be published as a Bill, and are you intending to give time, including time for this Committee, to discuss the Draft Bill before it is introduced, whether in the Commons or the Lords, at Second Reading? Beverley Hughes: There has not been a decision about the Queen's Speech, as you say, Chairman. That is the case. That is up to the Prime Minister. We are preparing legislation, obviously, in case we can get it in. You mentioned a Draft Bill; there has not been a decision on the status of the Bill in terms of draft status. It may well not be a Draft Bill if we manage to get one in. But certainly we will want to publish that as soon as possible, if we get permission to include it in the Queen's Speech, and go to Second Reading as soon as we can. Q822 Chairman: Would you accept though, Minister, given the lack of detail in the proposals at this stage, that it would be desirable for people inside and outside the House to see the Bill some time before Second Reading so that they can comment on whether the policy objectives that you have set out have been adequately expressed? Beverley Hughes: I do accept that general point. We have two competing imperatives here though. This is urgent legislation. The main planks of this we do regard as important to get on the statute books as soon as possible, and so the best balance that we can create between those two objectives we will do. Q823 Chairman: Perhaps I can turn to the proposals about travel documentation. Is it not the case that some genuine refugees have no option but to travel on false documentation, because it is the only way that they can get on an aeroplane? What exactly is going to be the position of somebody who obtains false documentation because that is simply the only way in which they can make their way to this country in order to claim asylum? Beverley Hughes: It is perhaps helpful if I start with the current situation and what we are trying to achieve with this set of proposals. The Committee suspended from 2.36 pm to 2.51 pm for a division in the House Q824 Chairman: Minister, you were setting out the position and the aims regarding the documentation. Beverley Hughes: Firstly, the situation that we are trying to deal with with some of these provisions. The very large majority of people who arrive at our ports who are going to claim asylum arrive undocumented. Secondly, a large majority of those actually arrive at airports, where, patently, they will have had documents in order to board the plane. So we are convinced that a large proportion of people who claim asylum at ports, particularly at airports, have documents when they board, but destroy them, or they are taken away from them by facilitators. It is very important, both in terms of assessing a person's claim, but also in terms of removing somebody if their claim is refused, to be able to document people. So the fact of a significant number of people who destroy documents is something that we have to address. It is also important in terms of trying further to break the power of the facilitators, the criminal gangs who are often providing people with fraudulent documentation, that we do so. For those reasons, what we are proposing are three separate measures; firstly, that the deliberate destruction of a document will be taken into account in the assessment of the claim. That does not mean that claims will automatically be refused, but it is a factor that is going to be incorporated into the assessment process. Secondly, to create two new offences, both of destroying documents and failing to cooperate with the new documentation at the end of the process in the event of a failed claim; and thirdly, considering asking carriers to take copies of documents so that we can track back if and when people do present without documents, having destroyed them. Q825 Chairman: In the position that I was outlining earlier, where a genuine refugee has no practical way of obtaining legitimate travel documents, and then travels on false documents and arrives at a port, are you saying that, provided they do not destroy that documentation that they travelled on, they will not be committing any new offence by travelling on false documentation? Beverley Hughes: No. That is correct. Q826 Chairman: Do you feel that in any way the position of genuine refugees will be made worse by the proposal that you are putting forward? Beverley Hughes: I really do not because, as I have made clear, it is in respect of people who deliberately destroy their documents. If people do not destroy them, they will not be affected by these measures. It is particularly to try and break the hold of the facilitators who, as I say, often, we think, collect those documents up from people in order to be able to use them again. So it is very important that we do have these measures, but I would be concerned if I felt that they might catch the small number of people who are travelling on false documents because they have genuine asylum claims, and I do not think that they will. Q827 Chairman: If a person had good reason to get false documentation, they may be advised by traffickers to destroy them. How will you ensure that no-one is left in any doubt about the consequences of destroying their documents? What do you say to the view put forward by the Law Society that some people might wish to destroy documents because it would put others in the country that they are coming from at risk? Beverley Hughes: Those factors will all be gone into in some detail if and when a person claims asylum as part of the interview. If somebody has a credible reason for destroying their documents, that will be taken into account. The measure is to take the factors into account in making an assessment, and if the person at the point of interview is open and transparent, gives us full information about their situation and reasons why, and that makes a credible account, then there will not be any adverse consequences for that person. Q828 Chairman: You said in the consultation that your measures to make the requirement on decision makers to take the lack of documentation into account would make that requirement clearer. In what way are you intending to change the legislation to make that requirement clearer if there is already a requirement to take lack of documentation into account? Beverley Hughes: There is not a specific requirement. As I say, this is in relation to what would be assessed as, as a result of that process, deliberate destruction of the documents. There is not a specific reference to that in the provisions at the moment. Q829 Chairman: We had evidence at an earlier session from three people who have been accepted, either with full refugee status or with indefinite leave to remain, all of whom came here, they openly admitted, under the auspices of people traffickers. If the aim of what you are trying to do is to put those people traffickers out of business, so far as you can, does that not mean there will be some genuine refugees for whom it will no longer be possible to gain access to the UK, even though, if they had managed to get here, their claims would have been supported? Beverley Hughes: We have always taken the view - and I think this is in the spirit of the Convention - that if people are fleeing persecution, if they fear for their lives, they go to the closest safe place, and in fact, that is what the vast majority of the world's refugees do, therefore I do not think this is a disadvantage to people fleeing persecution. There are many places that they can go to, sometimes including the UK but very often countries much closer to where they are than the UK, in order to claim asylum, if they really are in fear for their lives. Q830 Chairman: Finally, if somebody fails to cooperate in respect of re-documentation at the moment they can be subject to indefinite detention. What do you add to the system by threatening them with a short prison sentence for the same offence? Beverley Hughes: It is not strictly the case that people can be subject to indefinite detention. It depends on the circumstances. The courts in this country have decided that unless we have a reasonable prospect of removing somebody, then we cannot detain them indefinitely. There have been a number of cases that have consolidated that case law. So if the person is not cooperating, and if the state concerned, either because of its processes or because we yet do not have, as I think I outlined to the Committee, with certain countries the systems in place to re-document people quickly - and there are some instances in which China for instance, demands not only to know that somebody is their national but also their very specific identity - so if for any of those reasons, either to do with the person's cooperation or difficulties in getting states to accept people as their nationals, then we cannot hold people indefinitely because we have no prospect of removing them. Q831 Mr Taylor: Minister, can you tell us how many asylum seekers have been successfully prosecuted in recent years for travelling on false documentation? Beverley Hughes: I cannot give you the exact figure, but the advice to me is that the figure claimed by JUSTICE of 5,000 is wholly inaccurate. It is a very small figure. Q832 Mr Taylor: You have anticipated my supplementary question. If you would like to return to my first question, perhaps you could write to the Chairman when you have done a little more research. I understand your position; you cannot have every detail at your fingertips. Beverley Hughes: The figure I do have is that fewer than 20 cases have achieved compensation as a result of wrongful conviction for that, but I do not have the actual figure of people convicted. It gives you a sense of the order of things compared to the JUSTICE figure. But I will certainly write you a note. Q833 Mr Taylor: Turning to JUSTICE's claim, where they say up to 5,000 asylum seekers appear to have been wrongly convicted and imprisoned for using false documents, would you say that that was mistaken, or a wild exaggeration, or somewhere between those two points? Beverley Hughes: The problem is that the statistics are not available centrally. Those figures are not collated. We will certainly try and do better than we can do here and now. But we are clear that the figure of 5,000 has no substance as far as we can see, and that the actual number is far less than that. Q834 Mr Taylor: May I move on to ask you what progress you have been able to make in discussing with carriers a power to require them to copy passengers' identity documents before they travel? Are there practical difficulties with this? Have you made headway? Beverley Hughes: We are still in consultation with the carriers. Officials met some of the representatives from the industry earlier this month, and we are still in discussions with them and receiving their responses at the moment. Q835 Mr Taylor: Is it within your knowledge that other countries impose such a requirement, and do you think it would be feasible for the UK to do it on its own, without other national precedents? Beverley Hughes: We understand that Netherlands already do this, that their scheme is based on carriers' liability legislation, and that they have a scheme requiring all carriers to produce copies of documents in respect of all passengers from a list of specified countries. I think there are about 20 countries on their list. So there is at least one precedent. Q836 Mr Taylor: Anecdotally, does it seem to work in Netherlands? Beverley Hughes: We have not been aware of any problems they have had. Clearly, there are logistical and practical issues that would have to be resolved, and that is one of the points of discussion at the moment. Q837 Mr Taylor: Finally, how would you respond to the body called the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture, who argue that such a requirement may place genuine refugees in additional danger? Beverley Hughes: That the requirement on carriers would do that? I do not see how that would happen. Mr Jeffrey: The purpose of the provision would not be to cause carriers to refuse to board people whom they otherwise would board, so I do not think the point in that sense is well made. Its purpose is more that when, as the Minister was saying earlier, people destroy their documents in the course of travelling here, if we have some record of the identity under which they boarded and the documents they presented when they boarded, we will have more chance of establishing their identity for the run of the process. Q838 Mr Taylor: Mr Jeffery, I am new to this Committee, and new to this inquiry. May I ask you something that probably everybody else knows: what is the motive for a refugee destroying their documents? Why would they? Mr Jeffrey: We believe that in many cases it is done in order to make it more difficult, if we do end up refusing their asylum claim, for us to arrange for them to be properly documented and returned to their country of origin. Beverley Hughes: It is also done because the facilitators tell people to do it. We are clear about that. They tell people to do it because it is a way of preventing us gathering the kind of intelligence that we need to disrupt many of these gangs. Q839 Mr Prosser: Minister, following on from that last question, we hear anecdotal reports about cleaners and ancillary workers at airports and sea ports coming across large numbers of passports and travel documents torn in half and stuffed down the backs of seats. That would be useful evidence to use in coming to a decision on a claim or for removing people. Is there any process you have in place to handle this evidence? My fear is that is almost being ignored by the powers that be and by Immigration. Are you aware of this, and is there a means of dealing with it? Beverley Hughes: I am certainly aware that sometimes documents are found in various places, in lavatories in airports and such like. Where a document is found and it is possible to link it to a person, then that would be used. It would be linked to the whole process of assessing the claim. The difficulty is that that does not happen often enough and systematically enough for that linkage to be able to be made and to be made at the right time. It is not that large numbers of torn-up documents are being found and dumped in a sack and burned, and not being used where they can be used at all. Q840 Mr Prosser: But you would expect the finder of the documents, whoever that might be, to declare them to Immigration? Beverley Hughes: Yes. Mr Jeffrey: I would certainly expect that if such a thing came to the attention of our immigration staff at the airport, they would follow it up and attempt to link the documents with people with whom they may otherwise have had dealings. Q841 Mr Singh: Minister, have you given any thought to the scope of this idea of photocopying identity documents? For example, would it only apply to people travelling from certain countries? Would it apply to every passenger on that plane or boat? If it applied to every passenger, the genuine passengers, British tourists coming from abroad on their British passports, might get very annoyed if they have to go through this process, yet I cannot see it working unless it did apply to everybody. Have you given any thought to that practical side? Beverley Hughes: Yes, and you are quite right. It would be a waste of resources to simply have a blanket requirement, and we are not proposing a blanket requirement; we are proposing the idea of an enabling power in the Bill that would allow us to make that request of carriers on selected and very targeted routes. Also, for specific periods of time. The risk from certain routes actually changes quite a lot, and we monitor that very closely, and we have the intelligence to be able to ask a carrier for a specific period of time to photocopy documents on a particular route, to help with bearing down on what we think is an increased risk. Q842 Mr Singh: Would that involve everybody travelling on that route? Beverley Hughes: It would involve everybody on that plane, yes, but probably for a limited duration and, as I say, on selected routes. Q843 Miss Widdecombe: Can I put to you another possibility? We know the scene very well: people have to have documents in order to get on the plane in the first place. They arrive without them. They have lost them. They stay air side for hours on end, they present to the desks, and the immigration officers have no idea where they have come from. This is the whole point of the exercise. Why not have immigration officers meeting the planes from those countries which produce precisely this sort of problem, so that when people come off the planes, you check immediately there and then? If they do not have documents, you know exactly where they have come from. Beverley Hughes: We have certainly discussed that as a possibility. One of the difficulties is the logistics of doing that and having the capacity, the resources, to do that on the number of flights required. We felt that this would be a secure way if we actually had copy documents, as I say, on a targeted basis, to have a really secure link between the individual and the document. Q844 Chairman: Can I tease that out a bit further? Over a period of six hours or so there must be a significant number of flights coming in, for example, from east Africa. You might be targeting flights from, say, Ethiopia, but not from Kenya, but actually, given the evidence we had last time, if the immigration services find it difficult to distinguish between a Somalian refugee, an Ethiopian national and somebody from Kenya, how on earth can you, by the time they get to the desk, match the individual up with the documentation that they gave the airline at the point of departure? That is the issue we do not quite understand. Beverley Hughes: If we had a copy of the document, even if it were a false document, there would be a photographic record on that photocopy, and it would be of the person standing before us, even if, as I say, that was a photograph that had been inserted into a document belonging to another person. That would help us to identify at least where that person had come from. If you can imagine some of the logistics around the possibility that you raise, Miss Widdecombe, I am sure you in your previous role will have been at some of our busiest airports when large numbers of planes holding large numbers of passengers are all arriving at the same time. If you just imagine what it would involve to have immigration staff standing at the steps of a number of planes, all of whom you wanted to target, and somehow shepherding those people through the system and keeping a hold on them in some way, you can see it is logistically very difficult. Q845 Miss Widdecombe: It might show them we are serious. Beverley Hughes: Potentially, depending on how it were done, it would also inconvenience a large number of straightforward, bona fide passengers, who would need to be shepherded through as well, whereas photocopying the documents does not have an impact on the passengers. I accept it is an issue for the carriers, and that is why we are talking to them about it, but it seemed to us a mechanism that had least impact on the vast majority of genuine travellers. Mr Jeffrey: Can I just add that we do occasionally meet flights where there is a specific reason for doing so, but for the logistical reasons the Minister has mentioned, and also manpower reasons, it is not done on a very large scale. The other thing we are keen on is looking at more covert ways of ensuring that we can in fact link people back to the flights that they arrived on. We are having more success than we were in the past, even when the kind of subterfuge that Miss Widdecombe mentions is resorted to. We are having more success in linking people who present themselves without documents with the flight we believe they originally came in on. Even so, this provision which we are discussing with the industry now, if it were carefully targeted and intelligence-led, so that it did not disrupt the industry's ordinary business too much, it would bring significant benefits for us. Q846 Chairman: I can understand why you would not say it in Committee, but on the usual confidential basis, if there is information about those covert measures, we would appreciate if we could receive it by letter. Beverley Hughes: Certainly. Q847 David Winnick: The Government intends, Minister, as I understand it, to reduce the right of lodging an appeal against the decision of the executive. Is that correct? Beverley Hughes: What we are consulting on is reducing the number of layers of appeal that are currently still in the process. Q848 David Winnick: Can I interrupt you? You say "consulting"; do you mean you have not made a firm decision? Beverley Hughes: We have issued a consultation document on the major provisions that we want to introduce when we can, and one of the main provisions in relation to appeals is to reduce the current system to a single tier of appeals, not just for asylum but also for immigration appeals. Whilst we have greatly simplified the appeals process with previous legislation, requiring people, as Members will know, to put all their reasons for appeal at the same time in a one-stop approach, there are still a number of layers left which we feel, on the basis of the information that we have, we can safely reduce. That will mean, if our proposals go forward, that the current two-layer process, in which an appeal decision is made by an adjudicator, the person can then appeal to the Immigration Tribunal. If granted a hearing, obviously that would be heard there. If they are not granted a hearing at the Tribunal, they can then appeal to higher courts, and if that is refused, they can appeal to the Administrative Court for a statutory review. We think, because of the fact that 97% of adjudicators' initial decisions are actually ultimately upheld, that there is a strong argument for reducing the number of opportunities for further judicial scrutiny, and obviously the further delays in the system. So we are proposing to collapse the first two of those into a single tier and to look at a means by which we can reduce access to the higher courts. Q849 David Winnick: You gave the impression - I am sure not deliberately - that if an appellant has lost a case before an adjudicator, the next stage, automatically, if that is the wish of the appellant and the adviser, is to go to the Immigration Appeals Tribunal. Is it not a fact that only if permission is given by the Tribunal or by the adjudicator, as the case may be, on a point of law, could the case be taken to the second tier? Beverley Hughes: Yes. About 40% of people who are refused by the adjudicator whose appeals are dismissed actually apply to go to the Tribunal. Q850 David Winnick: Does that mean the Tribunal as it now exists would not, presumably, allow the case to be heard by them, unless there were a point of law involved? Beverley Hughes: That is probably so, but if you actually track what then happens to those cases, as they then go through, the 40% of refusals who apply, of those, just over 30% are granted a substantive hearing, and of those, when get to the end of the day, of the original number of appeals in the first place, only 3% of the original adjudicator's decisions are actually overturned at some point in that process. In other words, there is a strong argument that the adjudicators are making very sound decisions, and that the various points that we have in the system at the moment for people to ask for further scrutiny of that are not necessary, and are introducing delay to the system, which is largely what I think those devices are used for, and so we can safely simplify the process. Q851 David Winnick: It does not look like consultation; it looks like a firm decision has been made. Beverley Hughes: I was explaining before you came in, Mr Winnick, that a firm policy decision has been made that we need to simplify the process. We are consulting on the mechanics of how we achieve that, because it is very technical and it is very detailed. Mr Jeffrey: Mr Winnick is absolutely right to say, obviously, that access to the Tribunal is by means of a leave procedure, but if leave is refused, there is then, under the legislation which was passed in the last session, an opportunity to seek statutory review of that decision in the Administrative Court. So arguably, what we have now, with a proportion of the cases actually reaching the Tribunal for hearing, is a three-tier system rather than a two-tier system. Q852 David Winnick: On Legal Aid, the intention is to introduce limits. Am I right? Beverley Hughes: Again, the Department for Constitutional Affairs has had a wide consultation on its original proposals, which were initially to set a maximum amount of hours of Legal Aid, to have an accreditation system, and to give people a number so that that maximum could not be compromised, and they are still considering the responses that they received from that consultation. I am afraid I am not in a position to give the Committee any further advice as to what those considerations will be. Q853 David Winnick: The Constitutional Affairs Committee suggested there should be a moratorium on the plans to introduce such limits. Beverley Hughes: I think it made a number of proposals, and it is those proposals in particular that the Constitutional Affairs Ministers are considering at the moment. Q854 Mr Clappison: On the appeals, is it your intention that the Immigration Appeals Tribunal which people go to if they want to appeal from the adjudicator, should be a tribunal which can deal with all the issues and all the appeals at one and the same time? Beverley Hughes: What we are considering is having one body. Instead of having the appellate authority and a separate body at the moment, as you rightly say, the Tribunal, we would have a single body, which we would refer to as "the Tribunal," and they would deal with both the initial decision and, subject to decisions we have yet to take on whether internally there might be a review of certain cases at that level as well, but it would be done within the confines of a single judicial body. Q855 Mr Clappison: Are there cases which are taken on human rights grounds besides the system which you describe? Does somebody have a right to appeal on human rights grounds in addition to the appeal on asylum? Beverley Hughes: At the moment, under the one-stop process, no; they have to put all grounds in at the same time. They cannot appeal on Convention grounds, have that determined, and then come again on human rights grounds. That was the case, and that is what our previous legislation actually stopped. That has helped a great deal, but we think we can go further. Q856 Mr Clappison: When you refer to "statutory review," is that the same as judicial review? Beverley Hughes: No, it is not. It is something that was introduced in the last Act that went through last year as a mechanism for, I suppose, in a way, an alternative, faster process, similar to the judicial review but one in which the judiciary undertook to progress in a certain way so as not to result in the kind of delays that we have with judicial review through the normal High Court process. Q857 Mr Singh: Minister, you said that 3% of appellants to the second stage succeeded in their appeals. That is a significant number of people. Even if it were only 1%, it would be important. I am worried that the simplification will take away the rights of the obviously genuine 3% of appellants from the figure you have mentioned. How would their rights be protected in the reforms that you are going to undertake? Beverley Hughes: That is an important question. In a sense, you have struck the core of the really difficult issue and the difficult balance that we have to try and strike here. It is not the case that we do not want to protect the certainty that people who are fleeing persecution, who have a good claim, come through that system with that claim recognised. On the other hand, as all of us know, there are many claims that are not well-founded, where people are using the asylum system as a means of regularising their stay here for a while for economic reasons. As I said before, I am not pejorative about people, but it is a misuse of the system, and that is the difficult balance we have to strike. Q858 Mr Singh: What you are saying is you are looking at the abuse of the many and it will undermine the rights of the few. Beverley Hughes: No, I am not saying that. I am saying we have to try and develop a system which in the detail of its operation protects the few for whom this system was actually established, but make sure that people who want to use the system and delay their progress through the system so that they actually remain here longer and get more difficult to remove cannot do so. Q859 Mr Taylor: I accept that this is a slightly mathematical, even a pedantic question, and if you would like to take notice and tell me later, I do not mind. If I understand you correctly, of the original body of people who bring their cases for adjudication - shall we call that the 100 per cent - I think you said 40% of those appeal. Beverley Hughes: 40% apply to the Tribunal for a hearing. Q860 Mr Taylor: Then at the end of that process, 3% have their initial disappointment overturned. Is that correct? Beverley Hughes: Yes. I said that 3% of the initial adjudicator decisions at the initial stage of the appeal are changed at some point during that process. Q861 Mr Taylor: Minister, this is not in any way a trap. Beverley Hughes: No. I am trying to be clear, because it is complicated. Q862 Mr Taylor: It is complicated. What I am really getting at is: the 3% who get some kind of reversal of their original decision, is that 3% of the original 100% or is it 3% of the 40%? Beverley Hughes: It is 3% of the original 100. Q863 Mr Prosser: I want to ask you some questions about removal to safe third countries. JUSTICE has been critical about the criteria you set to define a safe country. What process will you put in place to determine whether a safe third country is actually safe? Beverley Hughes: We have commissioned some independent research, which is being undertaken jointly by the Home Office and the Foreign Office to look at both the conditions and the processes in certain countries. Secondly, it is actually lawyers who will judge whether the processes in the countries we are interested in designating are sufficient to be described as safe. Most of those countries will be on the face of the Bill, but we will obviously also include a power to add or subtract countries should conditions or circumstances change. Q864 Mr Prosser: How will you make a judgment of those countries responsive to changes in political control, changes in human rights issues as time goes by? Beverley Hughes: We need to be clear about the kind of countries we are talking about here. We are not really talking about countries where there is a fine line, or where processes of that kind - criminal justice and so on - are being developed. We are talking, in addition to EU countries, about non-EU countries that I do not think most of us would have any difficulty in describing as safe countries. Indeed, there is provision in previous legislation to designate, and we have designated one or two countries, such as the USA and Norway. The difficulty with the current legislation is that it does not cover issues on human rights; it only covers Convention issues. Secondly, it is not really robust enough to prevent legal challenge, so by designating the countries as safe on the face of the Bill, it really enables us, if we want to remove a person to that country, to cut down the possibility of legal challenge. But it is not going terribly much further than where we are at the moment. It is just an extra safeguard. Q865 Mr Prosser: You would also want to be confident that the third country understands its liabilities and responsibilities with regard to receiving asylum seekers. Beverley Hughes: Yes. We still have to do that in individual cases. That process will still have to be gone through in an individual case where we wanted to remove a person to that country. Q866 Mr Prosser: In cases where you are considering an individual, and that individual had relations and some footing in this country, and no relations or friends at all in the receiving safe third country, would that be an argument for allowing him or her to stay? Beverley Hughes: Not necessarily, I do not think, although I should make clear if what you mean by that is could somebody challenge that on, say, Article 8 grounds as opposed to Article 3 grounds, then yes, that would be possible. Designating the safe country does not make any difference to the potential of the person to argue that as a basis of a legal challenge, the Article 8 family life provision, but it would tend to help us if they were trying to argue on Article 3 grounds, in other words, that they might be at risk of their lives if they were returned home. It would not block off the other human rights potentially. Q867 Chairman: In the light of what you have said, can you give us an assurance that this is not, as some organisations have claimed, a back-door way of giving legal authority to the concept of regional processing zones, and that there is not an intention to start listing zones of that sort on the face of the Bill as acceptable third countries? Beverley Hughes: No. Mr Jeffrey: What this springs from is the point the Minister made at the beginning. If someone has come from an evidently safe country, there is no reason for them to claim asylum here rather than in that country. There is a provision in the 1999 Act that on its face allows us to return people to such safe countries, within and outside the EU. In practice, it has not been possible to use it much, partly because it is still open to certain kinds of legal challenge, which we believe we would overcome by having a certification process of the kind that we have been discussing. Q868 Chairman: We have heard speculation for example about regional processing zones in east Africa or the Balkans. Beverley Hughes: No. It has no relevance to that at all. Q869 Mr Prosser: I want to turn now to changes in support for asylum seekers and families. Your proposals would have the effect of removing support from individuals and families who are able to be removed to a third country or go back home, but refuse to go. The criticism is that they would be left starving and destitute, and we would have a re-run of the people who fall foul of the section 55 conditions. What is your view of that criticism? Beverley Hughes: The proposals are not at all intended to make families destitute. They are intended both as a deterrent but also as an incentive. At the moment there are a number of ways in which a family that comes to the end of the road and whose claim has failed and whose appeal rights are exhausted, can be removed from the country, although you will appreciate - and I get many representations from Members about this - that it is difficult when you have children involved. But at the moment, people can return voluntarily, and they will get assistance to do that, from us and also often from the voluntary organisation that we work with to help us do that. They can be in very small numbers, if they have had a poor immigration history, have been detained and removed from detention, but most families live in the community, and if they do not return voluntarily, they are removed forcibly. I think all Members know what that involves in practice, in order to effect an enforced removal. I have been out with the arrest teams. I did not actually see any families, but it is not an easy process for anybody, even individual adults, because of course, arrest teams arrive early in the morning - that is necessary - and that is an experience I would prefer families not to have, if I could. I want to try and persuade as many families as possible, when they come to the end of the road, to go back in a dignified way, with support, on a voluntary basis. It may seem contradictory to some people to say we are going to restrict family support when we get to that point, but that is our intention. It actually says to people, "Look, there are some alternatives here. We hope that you will take the best alternative for yourself and your children, that is, to go voluntarily, but if you do not, you will be removed forcibly and you will not continue to get support until we have done that." Q870 Mr Prosser: Nevertheless, there will be those, I am sure, who will decline that offer. Will they then have recourse to support from their local authorities? Beverley Hughes: As I say, I hope it will not come to that, and I do not intend that it should come to that, but if, in the extreme situation that you are putting to me, a family was not willing to go voluntarily and we, for whatever reason, could not remove them forcibly - and I think that is what we try to do; we try to remove them immediately forcibly - and disappeared and appeared somewhere else, I do not know. Then obviously there is provision - because those children are covered by the same legislation as any child in this country - for the children to be cared for by the local authority, but not the adults. I do not think that is in the best interests of those children, and I hope it would not come to that in any individual circumstance at all. Q871 Mr Prosser: I am sure you would agree that some of the worst instances and reactions we have had in communities in various parts of the country over the issue of asylum have been caused largely by perception, and false perception perhaps, rather than reality. On that basis, is it not the case that, putting together the issue we have just been discussing and the possibility of children going under the care of the local authority, adding to that the new criteria under which they will be supported, section 20 instead of section 17, which means their local authority would have responsibility to support that child or adult until he or she is 25, that would be a significant increase in the burden on a local authority. I am sure I do not need to recall to you, Minister, the effect in gateway areas like Kent, when it was the case in 1998 and 1999 that not only were there large numbers of asylum seekers being thrust together in one small, inappropriate area, but that the local individuals were paying extra Council Tax in order to support them. Adding those two issues together, it caused an almost inflammable situation. Is that not a problem that you should be looking at? Beverley Hughes: With respect - and I know, Mr Prosser, you are very knowledgeable about these issues - I do not think it is correct to collapse those two issues. What we are talking about with the Hillingdon judgment is unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. Clearly, we would not be talking, by definition, about unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. Q872 Mr Prosser: There are two elements. There is the element of a local authority under the new legislation picking up the support for children or parents who refuse to be removed, and you can add that then to the section 20 children, the unaccompanied children. Beverley Hughes: On the question of the Hillingdon judgment and the implications of that, I am actually talking at the moment with Ministers in the Department for Education and so on as to how we deal with that, because although the numbers of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in line with the overall fall in intake has also reduced by half - so the numbers actually coming in have fallen by half as well in proportion, so the impact on local authorities of numbers is less - clearly, I am very aware that that judgment, for young people already in the system, being cared for under section 20 as opposed to section 17, is significant, and I am aware of local authorities' concerns about that, and I share them, and we are trying to work out how we deal with that situation. But the children of families who are with their parents and due to be removed, if it came to it that in a particular case the children were taken into care, then we would act very quickly in those circumstances to remove the whole family completely, because clearly they would be with their parents. We would not be leaving those children with local authorities for long periods of time. Q873 Chairman: How do you prevent a situation where you would try to apply the new provision and the parents simply disappear, go illegal, leaving the children in the care of and at the expense of the local authority care under section 20? Beverley Hughes: That would be a difficult situation, because we would not, unless we could satisfy ourselves, want to return the children, but we could return them to other members of their family, and that might be a possibility. Q874 Chairman: Is it not the most likely response of people who have their support withdrawn, for the parents to disappear in that way? Beverley Hughes: I do not know. That is a very important generalisation about how people might regard their children as pawns in that game and be prepared to abandon them to a local authority. I am not sure that that would be something that many people would do on a big scale. Q875 David Winnick: Would it be fair to describe the policy as "starve them out"? Beverley Hughes: No. It is about trying to say to people, "You have some choices here. You have come into the system. Unfortunately, that claim has failed. You now have to return to the country you came from. But you have choices. You can go voluntarily, we can enforce that removal, which will not be a pleasant experience, and one which I hope you would want to avoid for the sake of your children if not of yourselves. But if you do not go voluntarily, you will not continue to be supported at the expense of the people here, because that is not right." We say similar things to families and individuals on benefits here now, do we not? None of the benefits we give to people in this country are completely unconditional, certainly not for able-bodied people, and so I do not think it is unreasonable that we say the same thing to other families when they have come to that point in the process. Q876 David Winnick: We would deny them every form of support even if they have children? Beverley Hughes: It is not denying people every form of support. Q877 David Winnick: What support would they have? Beverley Hughes: They have the option, at our expense, of returning home to the life that they left, and often to the family, the extended family. Q878 David Winnick: But as long as they are in the UK, until you remove them, you are saying in the categories which we are discussing that all forms of financial support, even though they have children, will be denied, and their children can be taken into care. Beverley Hughes: Yes, that is what we are proposing. Q879 Mr Clappison: Can I turn to the proposals for new powers for the Immigration Services Commissioner? Could you say firstly exactly why the Immigration Services Commissioner now needs more powers, and secondly, are you confident that these new powers will not have the unintended effect of affecting those who provide good advice to people in need of advice? Beverley Hughes: On the second point, I think people in that category will welcome the extension of provisions. I should perhaps make clear that it was actually as a result of the Commissioner's own analysis and comments he made in his Annual Report and in subsequent discussions with myself and the Home Secretary that he put forward proposals as to how he felt the regulatory scheme that he is responsible for could be improved, and all of the five measures that we are proposing here have come from the Commissioner, and we think they are sensible. Q880 Mr Clappison: I put that second question to you because the Mayor of London has called for more consultation on the details to ensure that legitimate refugee groups are not discouraged from offering advice. But you feel confident that groups who give good advice will not be affected? Beverley Hughes: I think that is true. Q881 Mr Singh: I want to raise the issue of the new criminal offence that you are proposing if people advertise or offer immigration advice when they are not qualified to do so. What is the definition of being qualified to provide advice in the immigration field? Beverley Hughes: I will have to pass on that. Mr Jeffrey: I think it is essentially something that the Commissioner himself makes the judgment on, but I think it might be sensible if we ask the Minister to write to you about afterwards. Q882 Mr Singh: I think there should be some criteria. Beverley Hughes: There are criteria, but I cannot give you them at this point. Chairman: I hope it does not apply to Members of Parliament giving immigration advice in their surgeries! Minister, since you last came to see us, there have been two or three other government announcements that are relevant to our inquiry. Q883 Janet Anderson: Minister, I know that you have been taking increased measures recently to crack down on illegal working. I wonder if you could perhaps tell us a bit about that. Also, the Home Secretary is on the record as saying he would like to work to build tolerance and enthusiasm for legal migration. Will it be possible to persuade the general public of the benefits of managed immigration, when there is still widespread concern about the scale of illegal immigration? It is about getting the balance right. Beverley Hughes: I think that is absolutely right, and that is what the Home Secretary was saying in his speech and in the follow-on to the speech last week. We have taken the view - and it is why we have started off so strongly on tackling the problems of asylum and illegal migration, of which asylum claims are but a symptom - that we believe profoundly that the public will not feel confident both about legal migration, better integration and resettlement of genuine refugees unless we can demonstrate that we have a system that is controlling illegal immigration and clamping down on illegal working that follows from that. That has been a core strand of what we have been trying to do. We have to demonstrate that. We have to do better on that side in order to argue the case for managed migration and for tolerance and acceptance of newcomers who come here either legally or because we do think they are refugees. Q884 Janet Anderson: Do you think identity cards would help? Beverley Hughes: We do think identity cards not only will help but with some parts of those problems they are actually essential. I know we have been criticised for not being able to say who is in the country at any one time and so on, but you cannot do that unless you have got some means of identifying people coming in but also going out. You cannot check people going out of the country unless you have got electronic means of doing so. Just on that point alone I think identity cards are a very important step we have got to take if we want to have embarkation controls and back again and the Home Secretary has said he is looking at that. I have been working with a group from across the industry for the last 12 months to see if we can strengthen section 8 of the previous Act and it is very difficult because there is no single document that employers can ask to see that establishes whether somebody has got the right to work. It is very difficult in that situation, as I have said to the Committee before, to bring prosecutions against employers if the statutory defence that they have got is just so loose that it makes conviction very difficult, whereas establishing the right to work very clearly would enable us to crack down much more forcibly on the employers' side of that. Having said that, although the conviction of employers is difficult at the moment for reasons I have outlined, on the enforcement side we have improved dramatically the activity that is going on there, and I wrote to the Chairman with an account of the various operations that have taken place, the number of disruptions, of gangmasters and the number of removals of people immediately following some of those higher level operations (and by higher level I mean those who only think we are going to find a significant number of illegal workers) and something like 50 per cent this quarter compared to last quarter and substantial numbers of people were removed immediately after the operation. Q885 Miss Widdecombe: Minister, shortly after this Government took power it announced an amnesty for 23,000 asylum seekers who have not had their cases examined. The Home Secretary has recently announced an amnesty for 15,000 asylum seekers whose cases have been refused, which together with their dependents is likely to be anything up to 50,000 asylum seekers. It was described as a one-off administrative convenience to clear the backlog. There are now reports, which I would be grateful for confirmation of denial of, that the Home Secretary is proposing to legalise people who are now working in the black economy and so long as they declare themselves they will be legalised, which is another name for an amnesty. Do you accept that the message that you are sending out is if you come to Britain and you can delay things for long enough or you can disappear for long enough it is okay, old chap, because in the end there will be a one-off administrative action to clear the backlog? Beverley Hughes: No, I do not accept that at all. Firstly, there are absolutely no plans at all to allow illegal workers to somehow regularise their position in this country. Q886 Miss Widdecombe: So the reports are false? Beverley Hughes: What the Home Secretary was speculating on then was actually in the context of a discussion around ID cards. The point he was making is that thinking ten years ahead, when the whole population is registered on the national database and has an ID card, the government of the day at that point, whoever that might be, will have to answer the question what do we do about the people who are here illegally who cannot, unless we do something, come forward and register. Q887 Miss Widdecombe: Is not the whole purpose of ID cards to discover those people? Beverley Hughes: Exactly, but the government of the day will then have to answer the question what do we do about them because they will not be able to apply for an identity card. So it is not a policy or an intention he was posing in that discussion and I was there, he was simply saying when we get to that point in time the government of the day will have to address that issue and it may be at that point that the government of the day might take the view that one of the options is to invite people who have been here contributing and working and are not causing a problem to come forward to be regularised. Q888 Miss Widdecombe: Contributing tax and national insurance. Beverley Hughes: Exactly. Q889 Miss Widdecombe: In the black economy. Beverley Hughes: That would be one option but it is not the only option and that was the point he was making. As I have just said in reply to Mrs Anderson, it is absolutely imperative that we continue with the policy that we have had over the past few years of making it the number one priority to bear down on the issue of immigration and illegal working and we will not reduce the pressure on that at all, we think it is absolutely fundamental to doing what we also want to do, which is argue a case for managed migration where the economy needs it, and secondly, having better solutions for genuine refugees worldwide and it is an essential part of that three strand policy. On the ILR exercise, the previous exercise of this Government in 1998 was a completely different exercise and it was the clearing of a backlog of people who for reasons we have discussed before at this Committee had been in the system for a very long time. This particular exercise was very targeted, it was for a particular reason, it was to regularise the position of people who had arrived here before the implementation on 2 October 2000 of the new legislation that we have talked about today, the one-stop appeal. Whilst these people - I do not know if it is all, certainly many of them - will have had their claim refused, they have not exhausted all the rights of appeals that they had under the previous Conservative Government's arrangements, they can still appeal again and again on human rights grounds and it was as much a cost-benefit analysis of what we do about those families, do we continue supporting them at a cost on average of £15,000 a year, add to that the cost of their continued process through the courts and successive appeals that your Government allowed people to have, or do we say from 2 October onwards those families arriving after that have not got those rights, they are in a different position, we want to introduce more legislation to simplify further the rights of appeal of families. It makes sense and it is in the interests of the British taxpayer to regularise the position of families who have been here before that date and that is the main reason we took that step. The other reason is one that I am often reminded of by Members of Parliament, including most members of this Committee at one point or another, which is the situation of families with children who have been here for some time making a contribution, settled in schools, many of whom came as a result of disruptions in Kosova and elsewhere and the question also arises is it right, in the light of the cost-benefit analysis, to try and send those families back and give those children a further disruptive experience. We took the view that in this particular targeted and focused way, concentrating on a group of people for whom those criteria exist, it was in everybody's interests to draw a line before we go on to bring in new simplifications to the appeals process. Miss Widdecombe forgot to mention the clearing out exercise that took place before 1998 under her administration, which was not announced and which only came to light when the huge rise in the number of people given exceptional leave to remain on an administrative basis had to be produced in the statistics and it was only at that point, some time after all those administrative decisions were taken, we found that what the Tory ministers had been doing was quietly granting thousands and thousands of families the right to stay but not telling anybody about it. Q890 Miss Widdecombe: And, of course, since we are in this sort of territory and it is unusual in a Select Committee, doubtless the Minister will recall that one of my first statements as Shadow Home Secretary was to say that I thought that was a mistake and that there would be no further amnesties and that has always been my policy. I am now asking you to account for your amnesties and I am going to ask you this very simple question: do you agree with that statement I made when I said that every time you grant an amnesty to people who have not got permission to stay here in the normal way you create an incentive for people to play the system in the hope of a future amnesty? Could you just tell me whether you agree with that statement or not? Beverley Hughes: I do not agree with that statement in its entirety because I think it depends on how you do it, it depends what you say and how rigidly you enforce the conditions that you apply, but I think that quietly granting thousands of people permission to stay is something that clearly got round into those communities of people wanting to come here and had a very insidious effect on the subsequent intake of people from certain countries. I do not think that is the way to do it. I do not know, Miss Widdecombe, whether you were a minister in the Government or in the Home Office at the time those decisions were being taken, but whatever you may then have said subsequently and retrospectively as Shadow Minister --- Q891 Miss Widdecombe: The Committee is asking you to qualify your decisions, Minister. Beverley Hughes: I have justified it. Q892 Miss Widdecombe: I am asking you if you agree - and if not why not - that every time you create an amnesty, never mind which government does it, you create an incentive to come here in the hope of a future amnesty and that when you describe one as a one-off administrative convenience and then a few years later you come along and do another and describe it as a one-off administrative convenience nobody is going to take that terribly seriously, are they? Beverley Hughes: I have answered that question, Chairman. I have said I think it depends exactly what you do, what conditions you attach, how you do it and how strictly you enforce them. I think the worst thing you could possibly do is insidiously be seen to grant thousands of people permission to stay without saying any of those things to Parliament or the general public. Q893 David Winnick: By the present Leader of the Opposition. Beverley Hughes: That is what undermines confidence in the system, when the public cannot see clearly what is being done and they feel they have been deluded by the administration and see a system that is not working. Chairman: We have all enjoyed that exchange but I think we need to make some progress. Q894 Mr Clappison: We do not want to go back over the arguments of the 1990s because I think we could find things that were said on all sides which have now been contradicted quite thoroughly. Can you answer this question specifically which this was part of Ann Widdecombe's original questions to you. The option which you described the Home Secretary might be looking at in the future, what message do you think that is giving to people who are now illegally working in this country or are thinking of coming to this country to work illegally? What message do you think they will receive from what you have said about this as a possibility for the future? Beverley Hughes: Mr Clappison, I did not say - in fact I said the opposite - that this Home Secretary is saying that that is an option for the future. I outlined the circumstances in which he was asked a question and in a reflective mode, because that is the situation he was in, he looked ten years ahead and said that a future government would have to address this question, if we have ID cards, that is the situation in which he was conjecturing. Q895 Mr Clappison: Can you say how he would interpret what you have just described? Beverley Hughes: One thing I think I can say for certain is that wherever David Blunkett is in ten years' time, he will not be Home Secretary and we may well still have a Labour Government, but it will be for a future government and Home Secretary to decide what to do in the situation in which we have all population ID cards and what then is done by the people who by definition cannot register. Q896 Mr Clappison: Can I take at face value your own words on that? How do you think people who are illegally working in this country or are thinking of coming here to work illegally will interpret what the Home Secretary said? Beverley Hughes: He has not made any position on that particular question. He knows he will not be the one having to answer that question ten years down the road, but somebody will. He is not posing that as his belief, he is simply saying that will be a problem, it will be a situation that the government of the day will have to consider and it will come forward with its own policies on that. He was asked a specific question about possible regularisation by the questioner. He did not raise that himself, he was asked it. Q897 Mr Singh: I have asylum seekers in my constituency who are nationals of accession states to the EU, I do not know how many there are in the country, but what happens to their asylum applications for their position vis-à-vis this country and their immigration status when those countries accede next May to the European Union? Beverley Hughes: If their claims are still in process at that point then their claims will fall. We will have to work through those people and write and advise them of their changed status. Q898 Janet Anderson: You have mentioned a cost-benefit analysis. What is the impact of the amnesty going to be on public spending? Mr Sutton: We have calculated that for every thousand of the population affected by the exercise that would move from benefits as a result of this change there will be a saving of £15 million to the taxpayer as a whole. Q899 Janet Anderson: So a considerable saving to the public purse. Mr Sutton: That is a considerable saving. The exact translation of that will depend on the process that we now have under way to look at how best these individuals can be aided from the benefits system into employment. Q900 Chairman: Minister, last time you were here you expressed some frustration about the low penalties for those who knowingly employ illegal workers. Somebody who knowingly employs an illegal worker is committing a crime. Somebody who makes their living out of employing illegal workers is living a criminal lifestyle. Should it not then be possible to use The Proceeds of Crime Act to get at the assets of those people who are exploiting illegal labour, often paying them well below the legal wage and exploiting their very vulnerability here? Have you given consideration to using The Proceeds of Crime Act against the employers of illegal labour? Beverley Hughes: I think we are certainly doing that at the moment. I think there are a number of issues which raise questions as to how feasible that is, not least in terms of - it depends who you are thinking about - your average gangmaster who is operating illegally. Q901 Chairman: Who lives in a nice house and is perhaps an upstanding member of the community. Beverley Hughes: It is that kind of person. Some are not that kind of person and there is a question about how much seizable assets some would have. Certainly, if people are in that situation that you describe then it is something that we ought to be looking at to be able to apply that Act. Chairman: Thank you. Q902 Mrs Curtis-Thomas: Minister, I want to ask you two lots of questions, one on working relationships with organisations dealing with people seeking asylum and a question about Liverpool Prison. We have received so many critical reports from agencies like the Refugee Council and many others that are familiar to you, all of whom share similar concerns and identify similar failures of your Department. The submissions we receive are well argued and are often supported by Home Office research which appears to be rejected when further legislation is being considered by your Department. These organisations typically only get one opportunity to respond to consultation documents but raise questions and arguments in their responses which are never answered. Having read these documents and submissions that we have received here I am minded to think that they have already considered the questions that we have presented to you and in many cases have formulated answers based on extensive experience. What opportunity do you give these particular agencies and these particular organisations to come and meet you on a regular basis, and where do you argue with them on the suggestions and the proposals that they put forward to tackle some of the endemic problems that you are experiencing in your Department? Beverley Hughes: I have regular meetings with a number of those organisations myself. Q903 Mrs Curtis-Thomas: Such as? Beverley Hughes: Particularly the Refugee Council. I also chair the Refugee Integration Forum which brings together a large number of those organisations and I personally chair that meeting, and officials meet regularly with representatives of those organisations both in subgroups and in a forum but also routinely at very senior level with officials from particularly the Refugee Council but also a group of other voluntary organisations and the British Red Cross I have also met. I think we do need to make more systematic - and I have talked to Ken about this - the ways in which people meet at senior official level and I think we can bring people together with senior officials on a more regular basis than we have done in the past, but since Ken has been appointed he has put in train arrangements for that to happen, but since I was appointed I have always had regular meetings, both with and without officials present, with the chair and chief executive of whoever was in those positions in the Refugee Council and in that situation the Refugee Council acted as a conduit for a wide range of voluntary organisations and put issues to me on that basis. Mr Sutton: We now have in the area of asylum support a committee who has looked at a number of very difficult issues in that area. We now have a formal stakeholder forum which brings together a wide range of the interested parties. That has recently had two very successful meetings and we are about to meet for the third time. So we are growing the range of formal exchanges and making sure that our contacts with these groups around the operational issues that are involved are guaranteed and systematic. Q904 Mrs Curtis-Thomas: It would strike me as though we have got significant intelligence wrapped up in these organisations which we are not exploiting. They seem to come to common conclusions and in many cases have common conclusions which appear to me to be rational. I just want to ensure that we are trying to draw that together and I have your assurance that that is the case. Beverley Hughes: Yes. Q905 Mrs Curtis-Thomas: Will you be looking at the responses that this Committee has received from these organisations and addressing the points that they raise? Beverley Hughes: Yes. Q906 Mrs Curtis-Thomas: Good, because otherwise I shall be forced to raise them on their behalf myself. Beverley Hughes: That is fine. Q907 Mrs Curtis-Thomas: The next question I want to ask you is concerning the detention of asylum seekers. I have been in extensive correspondence with the Department about people who have been detained in Liverpool Prison. These asylum seekers are normally detained well after their sentences come to an end and in many cases that can stretch to hundreds of days and I want to know what the purpose is in detaining people who cannot be repatriated to their own country. Beverley Hughes: Can we just be clear what categories of person this is. These are people who will have committed a criminal offence and are serving a sentence? Q908 Mrs Curtis-Thomas: The typical crime they have committed is normally to resubmit an application in somebody else's name after they have failed to gain asylum. They are then sentenced to prison, they go to prison and after their prison sentence has been concluded they are then retained and they can be retained for weeks. I have the list in front of me if the Minister wishes to see it. Beverley Hughes: This is with a view to deportation? Mrs Curtis-Thomas: They come from countries where they cannot be deported to. What are we doing about detainees? Q909 Chairman: Perhaps you could answer the general question and the more detailed case could be followed up outside the Committee. Beverley Hughes: I did make clear to the Committee earlier the current situation with case law and the way that is interpreted by our courts which does not allow us, even if we wanted to, to detain people indefinitely unless we have the reasonable prospect of removing people. We actually do have to release people if we cannot re-document them within a reasonable period of time or the situation in a particular country is such that we have no chance of returning them. Without further clarity about the particular group of people you are talking about it is difficult for me to comment further than that. Q910 Mrs Curtis-Thomas: You need to know that dozens of people are being detained in Liverpool Prison after their period of prison comes to an end and they cannot be removed from this country because we do not approve of sending them back to countries from whence they came. Beverley Hughes: If you could send me the details, a couple of particular cases would be helpful. Q911 Mrs Curtis-Thomas: Finally, I have one small question which is in relation to these detainees accessing Legal Aid and legal representation being very difficult. Moreover, they are supposed to receive monthly reviews and these monthly reviews of their status do not generally take place. Are you aware of that? Beverley Hughes: Again I am not clear what you are referring to there, Mrs Curtis-Thomas. Chairman: What I will invite you to do is give the information to the Clerk who can write on behalf of the whole Committee about these cases and then we can share the advice. It is slightly difficult for the Minister to know exactly the circumstances, but if we can pursue it that away then their replies will be on the record. Mrs Curtis-Thomas: Chairman, this is common practice and known to the Department. Chairman: I think the best way for the Committee to pursue it is to give chapter and verse to the Minister and for her to reply to us as a whole and then it will it be on the record as part of our deliberations. Minister, thank you very much indeed for being with us this afternoon. We shall try not to invite you again before Christmas! Thank you. |