Downing Street Says » Beverley Hughes

In answer to questions, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said it was important to be clear that the concerns raised by Bob Ainsworth were of a different order to the allegations – as yet unproven – which had been expressed in recent days. Those allegations centred on the suggestion that there was a policy to approve fraudulent documents knowingly. That was obviously a more serious claim than some of the concerns expressed by Mr Ainsworth. Of course that was not to suggest that his concerns were negligible. They were not, as Ms Hughes had shown by responding to his letter last March. Clearly Ken Sutton would look at the substance of the claims. Questioned as to why, if that was the case, Ms Hughes had resigned as a result of Mr Ainsworth’s concerns rather than the allegations which had been made earlier in the week, the PMOS said that the question was based on a misunderstanding. Having subsequently seen the papers – of which she had clearly had no recollection when doing interviews on Monday evening – Ms Hughes felt that she might have given a misleading impression that this was the first time that general concerns about Romania had been raised with her. She had been accurate to say that it was the first time the specific allegations relating to fraud, as had been reported over the last few days, had been raised with her. However, it was wrong to have given the impression that other concerns had not been raised, as clearly they had. Asked again, the PMOS said it was important to be clear that there were two different issues here: concerns expressed by Bob Ainsworth and allegations – as yet unproven – relating to systematic fraud which had been raised earlier this week. In saying that she hadn’t heard about those allegations, she believed that she had unwittingly given the impression that she hadn’t heard about any concerns regarding Romania, when in fact she had from Bob Ainsworth. That was why she had resigned.

Asked if he was suggesting that the two issues were unrelated, the PMOS said no. They were clearly related insofar as they were about applications pertaining to Romania. However, the other allegations were of a different order. Put to him repeatedly that they were exactly the same, the PMOS said that they were not. The allegations suggested that we had knowingly been pursuing a policy to approve fraudulent documents. In contrast, Bob Ainsworth had raised concerns about whether the policies that were in place in Romania had resulted in certain things happening as a result. Put to him that no one had ever alleged that Ministers had deliberately sanctioned abuse of the immigration system and that it all boiled down to incompetence, which was why Ms Hughes had had to resign, the PMOS said that the allegations were tantamount to suggesting that there had been a policy to knowingly approve fraudulent documents.

Asked if the Home Secretary had been aware of the correspondence between Bob Ainsworth and Beverley Hughes when he had addressed the House on Tuesday, the PMOS said that Ms Hughes had not seen all the documentation until after the debate on Tuesday. But clearly, as a result of the claims being made and the contact that she had had with Mr Ainsworth, that had led to a Home Office paper audit, as you would expect. The Home Secretary had not been aware of the letter until Tuesday evening when he had had dinner with Ms Hughes at which they had had an initial discussion about the matter and Ms Hughes had expressed some unease about it. It was only on Wednesday, when they were in possession of all the papers and Mr Blunkett had had them all read over to him, including the transcripts of her interviews, that they had met to discuss and consider the full implications of the matter. As a result of that, Ms Hughes had asked to see the Prime Minister. Both she and Mr Blunkett had been scheduled to have a meeting with him in the House in any event to discuss asylum and immigration issues. Asked repeatedly when it was precisely that Mr Blunkett had been given the papers relating to the correspondence between Mr Ainsworth and Ms Hughes, the PMOS said that it was during the course of Wednesday. Put to him that it was important to know whether it had been before PMQs or after in the light of what Mr Blunkett had said, the PMOS said that Mr Blunkett had had a meeting with Ms Hughes after PMQs to discuss the issue. In terms of what he had said at PMQs, that had been about the allegations raised earlier this week. He pointed out that if a Minister was confronted with something like this, they would obviously want to make sure that they had all the relevant paperwork before making a judgement as to whether to ask to see the Prime Minister and offer their resignation. We had been criticised in the past for things happening too quickly. It was therefore not unreasonable for people to take time to obtain the relevant papers, consider the implications and crosscheck transcripts with other documents and memos. He did not think we could be criticised for the speed of this. Asked why Mr Blunkett had shouted “He didn’t write to Ministers” during PMQs when he had known that Mr Ainsworth had, the PMOS said that Mr Blunkett had been referring to the specific allegations, not the concerns expressed in Mr Ainsworth’s correspondence. Asked when Mr Ainsworth had contacted Ms Hughes, the PMOS said that he would have had contact with her after the story broke. Put to him that it was important to know precisely when the contact had occurred and that Ms Hughes’s vague statement that it had been ‘recently’ was not enough, the PMOS said that Ms Hughes had resigned today. Insofar as this matter related to the Home Secretary, he had not known about Mr Ainsworth’s correspondence until Tuesday evening. Asked if Mr Blunkett had been aware of the conversation between Mr Ainsworth and Ms Hughes before Tuesday evening, the PMOS said that it was the letter which was important here because it was that which had indicated the actual concerns.

Asked why Civil Servants had not performed a paper trail audit when the allegations about Romania had first been raised, the PMOS said that all sorts of different allegations were being made and it was important to make a distinction between them. The first set, which had been dealt with by the original Sutton Inquiry, related in part to the same country but to a different area inasmuch as decisions had been taken unilaterally at Sheffield without reference to senior management. Ken Sutton had concluded that that should not have happened. In terms of the subsequent allegations relating to the backlog reduction process, it was important to recognise that that process had been taking place under successive Governments. No doubt Ms Hughes would not have said what she had said on Monday evening had she known about the papers. However, that was with the benefit of hindsight. Put to him that the fact that officials had not discovered Mr Ainsworth’s correspondence after the initial allegations had been reported was ‘beyond belief’ and pointed to sheer incompetence at the Home Office, the PMOS said that as he understood it, Ms Hughes had not recollected the correspondence at the time of her interviews on Monday evening, otherwise she would not have said what she had said with the consequences for her career. It was important to recognise that the issue in question was just one of many that an Immigration Minister had to deal with – and Romania was one country among hundreds where there was a very heavy caseload. Given the volume of paper which crossed a Minister’s desk every day, there was no way they could have instant recall about every single thing they read or wrote. Asked if it was Mr Ainsworth’s conversation with Ms Hughes which had triggered a specific trawl of his letter in the Home Office as opposed to a general trawl, the PMOS said that if allegations such as this were made and an inquiry was subsequently set up, it was inevitable that all the relevant papers would be pulled together as part of that process. Similarly, if there was a suggestion from a Minister that correspondence existed about the issue, that would obviously be searched for at the same time. Either way, the papers would have been found in any event. Mr Ainsworth’s contact would obviously have given a sharper focus to finding that particular paperwork.

In answer to further questions, the PMOS said that a Minister had resigned this morning. It was clearly not a happy day for the Home Office, but we should not lose sight of the important progress being made on crime, asylum and security.

2 Comments »

Sounds like lawyerly weasel words…the PM should select his friends more carefully
Comment by DEGREEK — 2 Apr 2004 on 8:16 pm | Link
I think we should whistle a happy tune, walk through a storm, hold our head high, fight the good fight, do what a man’s gotta do and m o v e on!
Comment by Patrick Haseldine — 4 Apr 2004 on 8:27 pm | Link

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Original PMOS briefings are © Crown Copyright. Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland. Click-use licence number C02W0004089. Material is reproduced from the original 10 Downing Street source, but may not be the most up-to-date version of the briefings, which might be revised at the original source. Users should check with the original source in case of revisions. Comments are © Copyright contributors. Everything else is © Copyright Downing Street Says.

» Thursday, April 1, 2004

Beverley Hughes

2 Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries