Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80
- 99)
THURSDAY 8 MAY 2003
BEVERLEY HUGHES
MP, MR BILL
JEFFREY AND
MR KEN
SUTTON
Q80 Chairman: What else might it
be besides cash?
Beverley Hughes: Well, again,
assistance with the arrangements to help people re-establish themselves
in that society, housing, training, putting together the wherewithal
where people can get employment and re-establish themselves.
Q81 Chairman: How has it been publicised
among the Afghan refugees here?
Beverley Hughes: The individual
staff in IND, through the removal centres, increasingly, and we
have prepared literature, leaflets that are available to people,
the NGOs have all been issued with all of that information. So
we have tried to have a strategy in which we have provided the
information through the kinds of outlets and contacts that we
think that people will have within the system, obviously, as I
say, our own staff from NASS and elsewhere, as well as the NGOs.
Mr Jeffrey: There are two distinct
issues, Chairman. One is voluntary removals, where we have tried
to use the widest range of means of letting people know that this
facility is available, including groups that exist to represent
Afghans in this country. And the other, obviously, is enforced
removal, where, to answer your earlier point, while the Immigration
Service will always want to do this as sensitively as they can,
the fact is that not much notice will usually be given where there
is any prospect that the person might abscond.
Q82 Chairman: I understand that.
All I am seeking to do is explore the possibility, or to suggest
to you, that we ought not to be dumping people back in countries
in such dire circumstances when effectively they are destitute,
and this is the point made in our report, actually, and we have
discussed it before. I do not understand what the objection is,
whatever the circumstances in which they are removed, to putting
some money in their pockets so that at least they can survive
for the first week or two; what is it?
Beverley Hughes: As you say, you
had this discussion with the Home Secretary himself, in relation
to returns to some of the countries, like Kosovo.
Q83 Chairman: He is the problem,
is he?
Beverley Hughes: No, he is not
the problem. He set out clearly why; whilst I am aware that, from
the NGOs, very, very small amounts of money, to enable people
to travel by bus from A to B, is given to some people, in some
circumstances, particularly on the Aardvark flights, where we
have contracts with NGOs, but to do that to any large extent I
think invites the kind of reaction that would jeopardise the whole
process. And I think it is much better that we make sure that
we give people the kind of assistance that they need and do that
properly, in relation to Afghanistan, in conjunction with the
Afghan authorities.
Q84 Chairman: I do not understand
this. Paying them £600 a head to return voluntarily, or services
to the value of £600, including cash, does not jeopardise
the whole process; so why would putting £50 in the pocket
of those you are dumping at Kabul Airport jeopardise the process?
Beverley Hughes: It is important
to maintain that differential as well. We would much rather people
go voluntarily, and to enable people to do that, to facilitate
us in helping them to go back, by offering to go voluntarily,
is one thing; but having to remove people compulsorily is a completely
different activity, from our point of view, in terms of what it
takes. And I think that I would want to give an incentive to people
to go back home of their own volition, but, in a sense, to include
in the arrangements for compulsory removal some of that cash incentive,
I think, would be counterproductive.
Q85 Chairman: How would putting £50
in one's pocket be counterproductive?
Beverley Hughes: It would obscure
the differential that I think we need to—
Q86 Chairman: It would put some money
into the Afghan economy, quite apart from anything else?
Beverley Hughes: Yes, well, we
have to disagree on this, Chair, I am afraid.
Q87 Chairman: You see, at the end
of the day, these are human beings.
Beverley Hughes: They are human
beings.
Q88 Chairman: And being an economic
migrant is not a crime, and many of our ancestors were. Now everyone
understands they have got to be sent back, and we recognise it
is going to have to be a fairly harsh policy, especially in relation
to countries like Afghanistan or Iraq, where there is not a lot
to go back to. But I still do not understand, and I think most
humane people would not easily understand, why we should be letting
people off, on the other side of the world, who may not have a
single penny in their pocket?
Beverley Hughes: I think you would
need to understand and know how many people were actually in that
situation. Many of the people being removed will have been here
for some time, and, certainly in terms of those that I have seen
in the removal centres, actually they are not destitute, they
do have, many of them, substantial resources that they can take
back with them.
Q89 Chairman: There is no problem
in those cases; that narrows down the field considerably, does
it not?
Beverley Hughes: Yes; but routinely
to include, which I think is what you are suggesting, in that
package of arrangements—
Q90 Chairman: Actually, our report
does not suggest we routinely do this?
Beverley Hughes: I thought that
was what you were actually saying now.
Q91 Chairman: No, I am not.
Beverley Hughes: To include £50,
or whatever, in the arrangements.
Q92 Chairman: I am suggesting that,
where we believe they have got either nothing or very little,
we do that; it is not all that revolutionary, it is not going
to subvert the entire programme, is it?
Beverley Hughes: I hear what you
are saying, Chairman.
Chairman: Right. I hear what you say,
Minister. Appeals. Mr Watson.
Q93 Mr Watson: Can I just get some
figures; how many appeals are being heard now each month, is the
trend upwards or downwards, and what is the size of the backlog
of appeals waiting to be heard?
Beverley Hughes: The Home Secretary
and the Lord Chancellor announced an increase in resources, to
support the increase in terms of the number of appeals that could
be heard each month, last November, from the 4,500 that were taking
place up to that point to 6,000 a month, and that is now happening,
I understand, 6,000 a month are going through.
Q94 Mr Watson: And the backlog of
appeals?
Beverley Hughes: The backlog of
appeals at the appellate authority, I do not think that is substantial
now, in terms of being much more than work in progress, I think
it is about, I cannot find my figure, actually, 19,000 comes to
mind, in terms of those still not completed; but, as I say, much
of that will be work that is going through.
Mr Jeffrey: The figure I have
is that, last September, it was 47,000, including 37,000 asylum
cases; but, as a result of the measure the Minister has described,
that has been falling steadily since last autumn.
Q95 Mr Watson: What is the cost of
asylum appeals to the taxpayer, in terms of the amount spent on
legal aid?
Beverley Hughes: I think, if you
will allow us to write about that kind of detail, we will have
to get those figures from LCD.[6]
Q96 Mr Watson: If you could try to
give us trends on that as well, that would be helpful?
Beverley Hughes: Yes.
Q97 Mr Watson: Have you got any idea
about how many of those appeals are blatantly unfounded?
Beverley Hughes: The majority,
of course, are dismissed, both at the first appeal level and any
that go through to the appeal tribunal. I think, about 20% are
allowed at the moment.
Q98 Mr Watson: So 80%, you could
say, have no basis whatsoever?
Beverley Hughes: Yes, they will
be dismissed by the appellate authority.
Q99 Mr Watson: What I am trying to
get at is, many of those 80% will be claiming legal aid to take
those cases, is that correct?
Beverley Hughes: Some of them,
yes.
6 See Ev 177. Back
| 
