Examination of Witnesses (Questions 820-839)
BEVERLEY HUGHES
MP, MR BILL
JEFFREY AND
MR KEN
SUTTON
19 NOVEMBER 2003
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.[1]
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 The 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 The 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
further on in 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.
1 See Ev 17-18. Back
| 
