Examination of Witnesses (Questions 100
- 119)
THURSDAY 8 MAY 2003
BEVERLEY HUGHES
MP, MR BILL
JEFFREY AND
MR KEN
SUTTON
Q100 Mr Watson: Can I take you to
Part 5 of the 2002 Act, the bit that restricts people's right
to appeal in certain circumstances; has that had an effect on
the number of appeals being claimed?
Beverley Hughes: Certainly, it
will have had an effect on the total number of appeals, because
whatever grounds people want to appeal on they have to do it now
at one time; whereas, as you will know, previously, they were
able to make successive appeals. So it will have had, I think,
a substantial effect on the total number of appeals, because it
encapsulates everything now in one appeal, and you cannot come
back for a second bite of the cherry.
Q101 Mr Watson: Is there any thinking
going on about any further restrictive measures that might be
taken, or new legislation, in the future?
Beverley Hughes: We are looking
all the time right across the board, not just at legislation but
the effectiveness of the border measures, and so on. As I said
earlier, I think it is in the nature of this enterprise that we
have to anticipate future trends, anticipate how, to some extent,
people respond to measures you put in place and find ways to get
around them. I have got no specific proposals at the moment I
can tell you about in terms of legislation, but just to say we
are looking right across the board all the time, and we will bring
something forward if we feel it is necessary.
Q102 Mr Watson: Have you got an assessment
of how effective the system of non-suspensive appeals has been
so far?
Beverley Hughes: Yes. I gave some
indication earlier, I think, that the impact on the number of
claims from the countries on the first list of ten was very dramatic
and I think much quicker than anticipated, reflecting to me the
fact that, as I think I indicated, word got back, and it is extraordinary,
actually, how these trends do change very quickly, as if information
is influencing people's behaviour. I think the figures immediately
before the introduction was a total of 275, in October 2002, immediately
before the introduction of the first list of 10; and that had
dropped to 40 claims in January, and we have sustained that reduction.
Mr Sutton: Perhaps I could add
just one point to that, which is that it is still possible to
pursue these decisions through judicial review. There has been
some such action but none has been successful, so I think that
is interesting.
Mr Watson: Which is good news for you.
Q103 Bob Russell: Minister, six weeks
ago the Home Secretary made his announcement about zones of protection.
He said that asylum seekers arriving in the UK and other EU Member
States could be transferred to a transit processing centre outside
the EU where their claims would be assessed. Could you tell the
Committee which countries might be suitable hosts for these centres,
and have they been consulted?
Beverley Hughes: No, I cannot
tell you that. What I can tell you is that, on the basis of the
Home Secretary outlining these proposals for both zones of protection
and better regional protection, and also for transit processing
centres, on transit routes, as you outlined, at the last Council
meeting, there has been dialogue both with countries interested
in working with us, participating countries, and countries interested
in being potential sites for centres of that kind, and indeed
discussions with the European Commission. And I am not in a position
to give you any further information about that. This will be discussed
further at the next Council in Greece that is coming up, and there
is every indication that there is sufficient interest from countries
for this to be a viable possibility.
Q104 Bob Russell: So are any of the
countries you are not going to name in Europe?
Beverley Hughes: Mr Russell, I
am really not going to, in a sense, cut through some of these
negotiations by saying publicly who is involved at this stage.
Q105 Bob Russell: Switzerland would
be a good one, it is pretty central, is it not?
Beverley Hughes: It may well be.
Q106 Bob Russell: So what has been
the response from other EU Member States to the Home Secretary's
proposals for transit processing centres?
Beverley Hughes: As I said, quite
considerable interest, both amongst people interested in working
with us on some pilot schemes, as well as more general interest
from countries that want to see how this will work. A lot of interest
too, and support, from the UNHCR, because, of course, these are
activities that we would want to do in conjunction with important
organisations in this field, like IOM and UNHCR, and they have
been very supportive.
Q107 Bob Russell: I can understand
interest, but has that interest now processed through to enthusiastic
support and a desire to have any of these European processing
centres located in a host country?
Beverley Hughes: I said to you,
there is warm interest, I do not mean to imply by "interest"
that it is simply a kind of cold and distant interest, there is
warm interest right across the board.
Q108 Chairman: Such as I hear what
you say?
Beverley Hughes: Yes, that is
right. I am sorry, Chair. I think there is a general consensus,
if you like, that the sum total of the asylum systems of all the
European countries put together, (a) is not working very well,
and (b) is not providing as much protection for people who are
fleeing persecution in parts of the world as together we could
do, and that there has to be a better way, by acting together
internationally, both to have better processing but also to provide
better protection in those regions where there are real issues
for people.
Q109 Bob Russell: So if there is
warm interest from existing members of the European Union, and
one assumes applicant nations also will be consulted about the
Home Secretary's zones of protection, and warm interest is being
shown all round, it would appear, what has been the response from
the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Organisation
for Migration, have they shown a warm interest?
Beverley Hughes: I think the proposals
actually build very much on the conclusions of the UNHCR from
its own round of consultation, resulting in its agenda for protection
and a commitment to revising the Convention, looking at Convention
Plus, as it is called. And they see these proposals as very much
on that continuum, very consistent with their own thinking; and
discussions are at an early stage, but they are very interested
in seeing if we can work together with them.
Q110 Bob Russell: So Utopia is on
the horizon?
Beverley Hughes: No, not Utopia.
I really wish we could have a sensible discussion about this.
Q111 Bob Russell: I am trying to
be sensible, but you will not give me half the answers?
Beverley Hughes: Because I am
not in a position to give you the answers, and I do not want to
pre-empt discussions that have yet to take place with conjecture
about individual countries. These ideas will involve some difficult
issues to be resolved; they are not Utopia and they are not necessarily
straightforward. It is a new way of doing things, and that always
involves problems to be resolved in the implementation. But, as
I say, I think there is a genuine feeling that these are ideas
of merit, that they deserve working through, and there is sufficient
interest from a range of countries in wanting to work with us
to work through some of those issues and see if we can actually
implement these ideas.
Q112 Bob Russell: I assume you think
the Immigration Advisory Service is a responsible organisation
which takes these matters seriously. They have said that such
camps or zones of protection "will inevitably be surrounded
by barbed wire and patrolled by security guards. The camps will
be out of sight, out of mind and, most importantly, out of the
tabloid press." How do you respond to that?
Beverley Hughes: I think that
is very unfortunate, for an organisation that is and should be
responsible. But I have to say that the position of NGOs has been
different on this. The Refugee Action Organisation said it was
encouraged that the Government is exploring a practical global
programme to help address the world's refugee crisis; the IOM,
as I have said, are supportive and interested, as is the UNHCR.
There is no question that the kind of future heralded by your
quotation there from the IAS, about the way any such centres would
be operated, would be the actuality; we would still have to satisfy
our Convention obligations. That would include the conditions
of safety and security and standards within which people were
living, if they were in a transit processing centre, while their
claims were processed, it would include ensuring that their claims
were processed satisfactorily and fairly within a process that
we could satisfy ourselves met our standards.
Q113 Bob Russell: Minister, you are
quite clear you are satisfied there will be no human rights abuses;
are you certain that the proposals would not breach international
law?
Beverley Hughes: Yes. The Convention
itself does not say that people have to be assessed, in terms
of their asylum claim, in the country in which they claim, it
says that that country has to accept responsibility for doing
that, but where that responsibility is executed is not specified
in the Convention at all.
Q114 Bob Russell: I understand the
European Union Justice and Home Affairs Council received the Home
Secretary's proposal on 28 March, and you have explained that
discussions are ongoing and there is warm interest everywhere;
can you give an indication of where the proposals are going, in
terms of a timetable, and when you think the first of these zones
of protection may be established, if things go as the Home Secretary
would wish them to proceed?
Beverley Hughes: They will go
back to the next Council, which is in either late May or June.
Q115 Bob Russell: In a few weeks,
anyway?
Beverley Hughes: Yes. The Commission
is also going to report at that Council, because it has been looking
at the proposals and talking to us and other countries; so it
will be on the agenda at that meeting. And, obviously, subject
to the discussions there, and at the moment I think there is an
indication that there is very positive reaction, we think we might
be able to have some pilot schemes underway before the end of
this year.
Q116 Bob Russell: Will those meetings
you referred to also consider the, I understand, common EU asylum
package? What is the state of play there, and what measures are
being negotiated, and when are they, if any, likely to be implemented?
And are there any major disputes between various member countries
of the EU?
Beverley Hughes: No. Some elements
of that package have already been adopted. The Reception Directive,
the Directive on Temporary Protection at Times of Mass Influx,
Dublin 2 and EURODAC, they have all been adopted and their implementation
dates from now on for those four. The minimum standards on qualification
and status is still under discussion, but the Greek Presidency
hopes to conclude that by the Council meeting in June. And the
remaining one, which is the procedures for granting and withdrawing
refugee status, the Seville meeting put a deadline of December
this year for adopting that, and I think it is on track, so the
whole package is on track to be adopted and implemented within
the timescales agreed.
Q117 Bob Russell: Finally, in the
memorandum to the Committee, the Government said that it "has
no current plans to withdraw from our international obligations
relating to asylum or the European Convention on Human Rights.
However, we should not be afraid to review our international obligations
if current measures to tackle asylum are not effective."
Under what circumstances might the Government feel compelled to
review its international obligations on asylum, what might such
a review lead to, and is the Government aware of any other countries
which are contemplating such action?
Beverley Hughes: Review does not
mean withdraw, and, in saying review, I think that is a position
that is consistent, as I have already said, with what the UNHCR
have already both said and done. Which is that the Convention
and its principles were defined 50 years ago, the way in which
they have been implemented over the years does not reflect the
changes in migration that we have seen during that time, and we
need to look again not so much at the principles but actually
the way in which they are operated, and particularly the extent
to which the Convention perhaps needs to take account of the very
large level of economic migration now, which was not the case
50 years ago, when transport and communications were so very different.
So, in that sense, we are very consistent with the UNHCR's position
on the need for a review, we have supported them in that review,
and that is what we mean by reviewing our obligations.
Q118 Chairman: Thank you. One final
issue, which I think Miss Widdecombe would have liked to ask,
but she has had to go and catch a train. What would you say to
the proposition that all new asylum applicants should be detained
while their claims are processed? I think this is the conversation
you had with her on the radio this morning, is it not?
Beverley Hughes: Not directly;
via John Humphrys, I think, yes. As she said on that interview,
that is her view, it is not Conservative Party policy, and it
is not our policy either. I do not think that is necessary. It
would take a very large amount of resources, that, as a Government,
we think we can deploy better elsewhere, across other public services.
However, as you will know, we do want to experiment with other
ways of keeping in closer contact with people. I have outlined
already some of those that we have implemented so far, the identity
card, basically, for asylum seekers, and also the process of induction
and accommodation centres, which we think will enable us to keep
in contact with people more effectively. So it is a question of
what you want, as a Government, as a party, to deploy your resources
on. We think that the very large amount of money that it would
take to detain every single asylum seeker is both unnecessary
and an inefficient use of the money that we want to deploy elsewhere,
in schools and in hospitals. Because it is not necessary, in order
to have a good system, to detain everybody.
Q119 Chairman: Have you made any
estimate of the amount it would cost?
Beverley Hughes: We have got figures
for the current cost per day of detaining people in various establishments;
obviously, the total cost will depend again on the numbers of
people coming in and how far we can reduce that down. I am happy
to give you the unit costs on detention, if that is of interest
to you.[7]
7 See Ev 177. Back
|
