Examination of Witnesses (Questions 580-599)
BEVERLEY HUGHES
MP, MR BILL
JEFFREY AND
MS ANGELA
RAMLAGAN-SINGH
TUESDAY 4 MARCH 2003
Mr Prosser
580. Good morning, Minister. I would like to
start by asking you some questions about the statistics and the
targets. Can you tell us what estimates you make of the number
of failed asylum seekers who remain in the country each year?
(Beverley Hughes) I think the members of the Committee
are already aware that this is an extremely difficult figure to
estimate, for all kinds of obvious reasons. We do not have an
embarkation check in this country any longer—that was abandoned
some 10 years ago—although as the Home Secretary made clear
when he was here in January it is something we are prepared to
examine. People leave voluntarily and we do not have, therefore,
a record of those. Some people make multiple applications and
we try to read those out of the system. We do not count numbers
not removed. We can do the arithmetic but reaching what we could
regard as a valid and reliable estimate of the number of failed
asylum seekers in the country at any one time is extremely difficult.
Having said that, we have got our statistical and research department
looking now at a methodology to see if they can come up with something
that could come closer to a reliable and accurate estimate, and
that work is still continuing.
581. Another complication according to the Immigration
Advisory Service is that some people are counted twice because
their marital status, for instance, might have changed during
their stay. Is that something else you look at?
(Beverley Hughes) I do not think it is so much that
people are counted twice, although certainly if they try to use
a number of routes that might be possible. Certainly as far as
asylum goes, we are aware that some people try and make multiple
applications under different identities, both coming into the
country having claimed elsewhere but also within country. We now
have the ARC, the fingerprinting identity card for asylum seekers,
which we expect to have issued not only now to all incoming applicants
but also to have got through the existing population of asylum
seekers on NASS support who are still in the process by March/April
this year, and that is proving very useful in tracking down those
multiple applications. We also have Eurodac on-line from the beginning
of this year, the European wide pooling of fingerprinting data
of new asylum seekers, so we can cross-check people who have claimed
claiming not just in the United Kingdom but elsewhere in Europe.
582. What about those asylum seekers who have
failed in their claim and come to the end of the legal process,
but who are still not removed for various reasons? Are you in
a position to tell us by what proportion each section of those
are not removed? For instance, an obvious example would be those
who have not got proper documentation or who have no safe country
to return to. Do you have that to hand?
(Beverley Hughes) We do not have figures breaking
down the groups in the way that you have asked. One of the big
problems that we are trying to address is the way in which information
has traditionally been collected in relation to number of claims,
number of refusals and, then, number of removals, and I think
the Committee itself may have come up against the problem that
we have not yet got, although we are now trying to put this in
place, a method of relating those populations in a statistical
way. In other words, moving towards a cohort-based mechanism of
collating the statistics so that we can say for any one intake
in any one year, not just in that year how many people we happen
to remove who might have come in the year before or the year before
that but of that cohort of people who claimed asylum in that period
of time how many have been refused and how many have been removed.
We have not yet got to a point where we can present the figures
on that cohort basis but it seems to me absolutely essential that
we do that, so our performance management unit is rapidly working
to see if we can do that. It is very complicated because obviously
the phases in that process involve appeals which is LCD and the
Appellate Authority so bringing the information together on a
cohort basis is complicated, but as I say it seems to me profoundly
important that we can report on a cohort basis how many people
have given leave, been refused and removed.
(Mr Jeffrey) If I may add to that, part of this is
about computerisation and after the difficulties of a few years
ago we have been building up a casework database and are in the
process of enhancing it now. With better computer support it ought
to be possible for us to derive the sort of information that the
Minister is talking about and to tag people more consistently
from the beginning of the process through to the end.
583. A lot of the arguments about the whole
issue of immigration and asylum are related to the numbers and
figures, and you have told us there is a lot of work going on
in a number of areas to get more accurate and realistic figures.
When can we expect to see that work complete and figures published?
(Beverley Hughes) I think we have improved the reporting
over the last period of time. We now include dependants for instance.
People get clear pictures, as we saw last Friday, of the statistics
as far as they have historically been collated, but in terms of
moving towards a cohort-based approach and having that as supplementary
information I am not sure but I would hope within the next six
months or so we will be in a position where we can start producing
the figures.
584. You mentioned in earlier answers that the
process of counting people in and counting people out was abandoned
some time ago. Is it not the case that the only way we will get
real answers to these number questions is to reinstate a system
of counting non EEA visitors in and out? Have you considered that
and looked at it?
(Beverley Hughes) It is under consideration at the
moment. Some work has been done on what it will cost to reinstate
an embarkation check. There are technical issues around that too:
I have to stress that no decision has been taken but as I said,
following the Home Secretary's remarks at the Committee in January
when he was asked about that, he has gone on to ask for some work
to be done to scope what that would involve.
585. I am moving now to the question of targets.
You remember the discussions about targets of 30,000 removals
a year which in the event turned out to be something like a third
of that and now we are talking about targets of 13,000 a year,
and very recently the Prime Minister has claimed a target of halving
the number of incoming asylum seekers. Can you enlarge on those
targets and in terms of the Prime Minister's pledge, when he said
he expected the number of incoming asylum applicants to halve,
what was he talking about? Half of what?
(Beverley Hughes) The benchmark for that is the monthly
figure immediately prior to the implementation date, the Royal
Assent date, on the Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act, so
the benchmark is the figure for October 2002. We have always said
that should be benchmark because we do believe, although the process
of looking at what needs to be done further is continuing, that
the measures included in the Act and the other measures that have
come on-line since then including the work with France will have
an impact, and therefore we believe that the right benchmark is
the period of time immediately before Royal Assent of the Act,
and the figures for that month on intake as you know were 8,900
applications.
586. Finally, how confident are you that that
target will be met?
(Beverley Hughes) As the Home Secretary said on Friday
clearly you cannot be 100% certain. These are aspects of human
behaviour and human decision-making that are influenced by those
individuals but also by huge global and international events and
we just have to put that qualification, but in terms of where
we are and in terms of the measures that we have brought on-line
and the further thinking that is going on in case it is necessary
to bring on some additional measures, I am really confident that
we can get to that figure. There is a real drive to do so but,
as I say, we are in an international context with this issue and
there may be unforeseen effects that we have then to take account
of.
587. Am I allowed to ask if your officials share
that confidence?
(Beverley Hughes) Certainly!
(Mr Jeffrey) Yes. I think the Minister is exactly
right—this is a very-difficult-to-predict set of circumstances.
It is affected by what happens elsewhere in the world and the
places to which that gives rise but if one takes something like
a steady state, we believe that the measures we have put in place
and are putting in place, particularly at the channel ports, have
the capacity to reduce the intake quite substantially.
David Winnick
588. Bearing in mind, Minister, what you have
just said, that events abroad could well change the situation,
is it really sensible to set targets?
(Beverley Hughes) I think it is sensible to have aspirations
that drive performance and it is reasonable to have some quantification.
I take the view that targets themselves do provide a goal for
people which helps to shape decision-making and practice and performance
as people try to meet that target. I think when targets become
ends in themselves then perhaps, if this is what you are suggesting,
they can be counter-productive and they also become something
that people beat you with, but even so—and I am not suggesting
this is the case in this particular instance—if you have
an ambitious target and get most of the way towards that, even
if you do not meet it, you are probably doing a lot better than
if you did not have a target at all and your performance was not
being driven by trying really hard to reach a goal. So I think
they serve a purpose: they are a means to an end, but they are
not ever a final end in themselves, are they?
589. Many of us would not question good intentions—there
may be some on the political scene for political reasons but I
for one would not question good intentions—but bearing in
mind how the Home Office tripped itself up over the original target
to remove 30,000 failed asylum seekers a year, or 2,500 a month
which the Home Secretary said that was very overambitious, is
there not a lesson to be learned from raising expectations, Minister,
when in fact in practice, and for the reasons you have explained,
there is a good likelihood that that target will simply not be
reached? Has the lesson been learnt from that one?
(Beverley Hughes) There is a lesson in there in that
you need to try and apply as much science and experience in terms
of setting the target, but I do not think that takes away from
the usefulness of having targets themselves. I do believe they
play an important part in driving up performance. Yes, you need
to make them realistic but that is a fine balance, is it not?
Anyone could set a target that is easily achievable but what would
you achieve by that? How much performance would you improve? You
have to try, and it is not an exact science, to pitch your target
in a way that does extend your performance and take you further
towards some important objectives but is not so unrealistic that
you are bound not to meet it.
590. So would we be right to come to the conclusion
that the Prime Minister has set a target which has already been
mentioned—that numbers should be halved by September of
this year—and that the Prime Minister has instructed the
Home Office, that is the Home Secretary and yourself as the Minister
directly responsible, to meet that target?
(Beverley Hughes) No, that would not be right. There
are continuing discussions and meetings with the Prime Minister
and myself and the Home Secretary about—
591. But he has set the target, has he not?
(Beverley Hughes) What I am saying to you is that
the impact of the measures we are bringing on-line has been the
subject of on-going and regular discussion between us and that
the kind of figures that the Prime Minister gave out publicly
had been discussed, so what you are saying, Mr Winnick, is not
true. You might like to believe that and contribute to the attempts
of others to say there is a wedge there but there is not. We are
all working in the same direction.
592. I think the Prime Minister is looking over
your shoulders, is he not?
(Beverley Hughes) No. He is working alongside the
Home Secretary in the way he has done with other Cabinet secretaries
because this is a very important issue and we recognise it is
very important to the people of this country for all kinds of
reasons—not least community relations in this country—and
therefore he is bringing his interest alongside the drive of the
Home Secretaries to work together. It is corporate government.
Mr Clappison
593. Can I apologise to the Minister and to
the Committee for my late arrival, and do stop me if I am asking
you for a figure which you have already given but I have been
told you have not given this yet. Before we come on to the new
targets on reducing applications can I come back to the old targets
on removals, and the number of people who are staying in this
country as failed asylum seekers? I think you said in your evidence
that it is difficult for you to know how many people have left
voluntarily but, putting that to one side, have you a figure for
the number of people in this country whose applications have been
determined in the last five years and whose applications have
failed and who have exhausted their appeals process who are simply
remaining in the country unless they have voluntarily departed?
Presumably you must have a figure for that.
(Beverley Hughes) We probably could work a figure
out for that particular statistic but I have not got that with
me today for the last five years. We will certainly provide the
Committee with that before you conclude.
594. If I were to say to you that my guess would
be that it would run into several hundred thousands, would you
agree with that?
(Beverley Hughes) I do not think that would be right.
There have been various estimates over different periods of time.
In fact, we discussed with Mr Cameron when we were last here a
figure which I think we thought probably was of, as far as we
can say, a reasonable order. There have been other figures produced
by Migration Watch UK and others which we would wholly dispute
but I must insist that I do not think anybody has come up with
a figure of several hundreds of thousands.
Mr Clappison: If you would like to give
us another figure I would be pleased to receive it. If I can tell
you precisely what I am asking for, it is the number of people
whose cases have been dealt with in the last five years which
have been determined who have failed in their initial determination,
whose appeals have failed, and who have no reason to stay in the
country, and are presumed to be here unless they have voluntarily
left.
Chairman: Why only the last five years?
Mr Clappison
595. Well, it is the last five years the Minister
and the Government have had responsibility for. If she wants to
take it back any further she can do but I am interested in the
last five years because this is the length of time that the Government
has been responsible for its present policies.
(Beverley Hughes) I have certainly got figures here
for the number of people who applied in any one year and the number
of decisions and the number of refusals, so if you will let us
add them up for the last five years, I will get my officials to
do that.
(Mr Jeffrey) Adding to that, we can certainly derive
a figure for the numbers refused, taking account of the success
rate on appeal as well. The difficulty is that, for the reasons
the Minister was giving earlier in the session, it would not then
necessarily give you an estimate of the removable pool because
there are other factors including the fact that some people do
just leave.
596. Yes. It is taking that into account although
some people would say that is fairly unlikely but it is a possibility,
given that people have gone to such lengths to come here. If we
could have that figure that would be very useful.
(Beverley Hughes) Yes. Perhaps we can provide that
to you afterwards?
Mr Clappison: Yes.
Mr Cameron
597. Just on one point that came out of Mr Winnick's
questions to you, did you know in advance that the Prime Minister
was going to make that promise about halving the number of asylum
seekers by September?
(Beverley Hughes) We knew the Prime Minister was doing
two important interviews in that day—
598. We all knew that but did you know he was
going to make a promise?
(Beverley Hughes) It was no surprise because those
were the figures we had discussed. The Prime Minister was doing
two interviews which involved questions and answers from members
of the public as well as Jeremy Paxman. We knew it would cover
a wide range of issues. We did not know necessarily asylum would
come up but it was pretty predictable, and what the Prime Minister
said at that interview on that particular issue was no surprise
because it simply rehearsed discussions we had had with the Prime
Minister and are continuing to have on a regular basis.
599. But this is what defies all belief: had
you fixed this baseline of October before he gave that interview?
(Beverley Hughes) Yes. We have always said—
|
