News

Being home secretary is the most difficult job in politics, according to the Prime Minister. So where does that place Home Office minister Beverley Hughes?

"Challenging, tough, absorbing" is how the former probation officer and lecturer in social work, refers to her role. That is one way of describing being minister for asylum seekers and immigration. On one side stand the Daily Mail and its allies, complaining of soft government policies failing to stem an unstoppable flow of people through the Channel Tunnel. On the other side, liberals complain of an illiberal government and argue that its policies are designed to deter asylum seekers and pander to the right. Unsurprisingly, Hughes uses the word "balance" several times during our interview.

She stresses her title is properly that of minister for citizenship, immigration and community cohesion at the Home Office. And that, she says, means treating these issues as integral in order to build strong communities and a balance of responsibility.

But parliament is now debating the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill, which is the fourth nationality bill in a decade, each of which has claimed to reform the system and each of which, say critics, emphasises deterrence and does little to support the rights of those coming to this country.

"I wouldn't accept that," says Hughes. "I can't speak for the Tories' legislation but we have had two bills since 1997. Jack Straw inherited a system that was coming apart and he had to act very quickly to get hold of it. What we now have, with the current bill, is the most radical and far-reaching reform of nationality, immigration and asylum policy for years. What we are seeking is a new balance between three objectives.

"The first is to bear down on abuse that sees large numbers of people being trafficked. Second, we want to make it easier for people who flee persecution to get here and, when here, to be able to integrate much more efficiently. The third objective is to open up legitimate opportunities for economic migration to support our economy, to add value to what people do, but also to allow them to acquire skills while they are here which may be useful for their countries if they return home."

But isn't there a contradiction in wanting those from overseas to come here to plug skills and labour gaps in our economy -Êboth in service and other industries and in health and social care -Êand the strong emphasise on deterrence?

No, says the minister, because that confuses immigration and asylum policies. The government has already opened up the way for more people to come here to work. Job-seeking cannot be used to "subvert" (and so, bring into disrepute) the asylum system.

But why stop asylum seekers from working who have been here for six months without their status being agreed, as Hughes recently announced? This won't affect new applications, she claims, because decisions on status will now be taken within two months and appeals heard within four months, under the government's streamlining of procedures.

As to the importance of integration, educating children of asylum seekers within the walls of the proposed accommodation centres hardly sets an example.
"At the moment, claims by 60 to 70 per cent of people do not succeed and they have to return home," says the minister. "At the point at which they claim, their children need a supportive environment where health, education and advice can be offered, their needs can be met, where the claim can be assessed on the spot; and where everyone has the chance for sport or other purposeful activity. At that time children will be offered greater stability -Êbetter than being dispersed, where they attend a school for only a short time before returning to their own countries if the parents' claim does not succeed.

"Under the proposed system, they will have the chance to learn English and other skills, even if they do return home, in a system that will be inspected by Ofsted and where they are taught by qualified teachers. For children who will live here permanently, their stay in the accommodation centre will be for only a few weeks."

But immigration and asylum both often involve an underworld; many people disappear. Children are outside the purview of statutory agencies, while some social workers do not see children without settled status or who are here illegally as their responsibility.


Children disappearing from official view are not something that she's aware of. She says: "It is not a matter that has been raised with me by local authorities -Êthat a child lacking in immigration status can't be responded to because of that. Nor have I seen evidence from elsewhere that local authorities are using the immigration status of children to avoid their responsibilities toward them."

What she is concerned about - and is working on - is the disproportionate number of asylum seekers' children that councils in London and the South East are working with. Greater co-operation is needed with other authorities elsewhere so that councils meet their responsibilities under the Children Act 1989, and so that the task of doing so does not fall to a select few.

Hughes says: "We also have to see how we can return more children home as that is, when all is considered, the best place for them. But before that is even attempted we have to be assured about what they are going back to and whether they will be safe."

When she has to make a decision about cases does she bring anything of the former probation officer and social work academic to bear?

"One thing I do," she says, "is always to get the fullest information upon which to make a decision, and I suppose that comes from my professional background. The other thing I have to do -Êas I did in my past work -Êis to uphold a system that is fair, rational and treats people who are in similar circumstances consistently. I can't and wouldn't exercise my responsibilities unfairly or emotionally."

Shadow home secretary Oliver Letwin has recently said on BBC Radio Four's The Long View that: "It's just a great misfortune that we can't accommodate them [asylum seekers] all."

But Hughes queries whether emigrating to a richer country like the UKis the best way of improving the lot of people in developing countries. "Does it mean that those who come will be only the brightest, the fittest and those who can pay? What about others in those countries who can't make it? What we have to do is to help those countries' economies and improve quality of life there.

"Also, if that were our policy we'd be encouraging those international gangs who encourage people to sell their homes, give them the money and claim they can get people into the UK. We have to make it clear that won't work.

"The public knows it's going on and the problems that arise are often felt by the poorest and most hard-pressed communities. So what we want is a balanced policy - clear about challenging abuse but also about valuing the diversity of people. We have to find a balance between competing imperatives.

"It is easy to characterise policies as right wing, pandering to prejudice and so on. The progressive left can't be seen to lag behind on this issue but must be seen to be offering credible solutions, not just on immigration and asylum but on community cohesion, just as we had to in 1997 on the question of crime.

"What we have now is the first rational attempt to put forward a coherent policy on these issues and offer some cohesion, while standing out squarely against racism and in favour of valuing diversity in our community."