Select Committee on Public Accounts Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 120-139)

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE, UKVISAS, AND THE HOME OFFICE

21 JUNE 2004

  Q120 Mr Williams: Let us come to Mr Jeffrey. What was minuted to your office, and when, that apparently somehow you did not actually see?

  Mr Jeffrey: I was not copied in the exchange between—the letter from Sir John Ramsden to Mr Mace and the reply that he received. That was about a month after I had taken up post myself, and I was unaware of that exchange. I find, going back to it, that I was copied on the exchange between Mr Ainsworth and Beverley Hughes, which I would say, looking at it, is in quite general terms.

  Q121 Mr Williams: Yes, I understood that; I noted general terms—

  Mr Jeffrey: It simply amounts to his supporting what he found, and Beverley Hughes replying, saying that there was very little flexibility in the law as it stands.

  Q122 Mr Williams: That is fine; I have got what I wanted; I have clarified what I wanted to know. Sir Michael, you said that at some time the Foreign Office thought it had been resolved, when it had not. What had you thought had been resolved when it had not, and when was that?

  Sir Michael Jay: I was there referring to the reply to Sir John Ramsden's letter that came from the Home Office and explained that the Home Office understood the concerns raised by the Embassy in Bucharest and Sofia, but that their interpretation of the rules governing the ECAA scheme meant that they believed they had no alternative but to continue to operate the scheme as they had been.

  Q123 Mr Williams: When was this?

  Sir Michael Jay: I think that letter, if I remember rightly, was in November 2002. When either Bill Jeffrey or I said that it had been resolved, what we meant was that the issue had been settled in the sense that at that stage the Foreign Office accepted the Home Office advice, and asked the UKvisas operations to act in that context. So, as Bill Jeffrey said, it was in that sense resolved, but resolved unsatisfactorily because, as Ken Sutton's report has subsequently shown, the legal basis on which that judgment was made was not correct.

  Q124 Mr Williams: Both your offices in 2002 were alerted, but misinterpreted what had been notified to you, or decided to do nothing about it. In the next 12 months, then, if we look at appendix 7 on the very final small table there, the number of cases from Sofia went up nine-fold, from 890 to 6,659; and the number from Bucharest went up seven-fold, from 184 to 1,375. Those are massive increases, are they not? Should increases of that scale have caused any concern?

  Sir Michael Jay: Yes, it should have done, and I think it did, which was why the embassies continued to express their concerns to the Home Office as that number rose.

  Q125 Mr Williams: In that case, why was no-one concerned when the number of applications in Sofia went up from 2001-02 forty-fold times by 2002, when the notices were first coming around? If you had noticed the nine-fold increase, why did not anybody notice the forty-fold increase?

  Mr Jeffrey: I think it should have been noticed.

  Q126 Mr Williams: It is quite noticeable, is it not?

  Mr Jeffrey: A big change. I think generally speaking one of the problems we have had in IND in past years is a lack of management information in the right form reaching senior levels. We have reached a position where we get very good analysis of trends of this sort in relation to asylum-seeking. We are working hard to improve it elsewhere, and we now have plans for much richer information and much better spotting of trends of this sort. But I have to admit that that trend was not spotted as early as it should have been.

  Q127 Mr Williams: To come back to you, Mr Barnett, when you were notified in 2002, it was then increasing in 2002 to 890 that year, whereas the previous year it had been only 23. Were you not concerned when you got this minute, or this notification? Did you not to look to see if there was any significant change in the trend in the number of applications, and then did that not raise any worrying signal?

  Mr Barnett: We did continue to monitor what happened on ECAA applications, although—

  Q128 Mr Williams: So you were aware of a forty-fold increase—

  Mr Barnett: I was not aware—

  Q129 Mr Williams: —over two years.

  Mr Barnett: No, we were not aware of that level of increase.

  Q130 Mr Williams: You did not monitor it very well, did you?

  Mr Barnett: I have to say that our own management information, as the Report points out, has in the past been far from ideal, which is why we—

  Q131 Mr Williams: Far from ideal! It has been grossly inaccurate.

  Mr Barnett: This is why we have—

  Q132 Mr Williams: And that is an under-statement.

  Mr Barnett: This is why we have developed a new central reference system, which enables us remotely and automatically to collect accurate statistics.

  Q133 Mr Williams: You see, because you missed the forty-fold increase in the one year, you made possible the nine-fold increase again in the following year. This must have been an absolute bonanza for some of the crooks, the agents who were operating. In the paragraph above that table it says they were getting about £1,500 per case for guaranteeing provision of visas. So on that basis, in 2003 the agents could have made about £10 million in Sofia alone on the fees they extracted.

  Mr Barnett: We were aware of the trend towards rising applications. That is one of the reasons why an immigration liaison officer was posted to the region, and why action was taken.

  Q134 Mr Williams: When were you aware of the trend?

  Mr Barnett: We were aware of the general size of the trend from late 2002 onwards. We were in discussions with IND colleagues. However, it is IND that are responsible for setting the policy against which ECOs overseas have to operate; and, as the Sutton report shows, it was the IND view of policy that prevailed.

  Q135 Mr Williams: You were monitoring, and yet seemed to be doing nothing, and yet if you take the combined figure relating to Sofia, in 2001-02, to 2003-04, there was a three hundred-fold increase, and still no-one seemed to be concerned.

  Mr Barnett: Much of this was in response to a series of individual cases. As I say—

  Q136 Mr Williams: You mean a flood of individual cases, do you not—a three hundred-fold increase in two years?

  Mr Barnett: I think the first thing to say is that we were aware of a general trend, and that individual—but the post did not address to me a systematic case regarding a whole series of trends. The other point I would want to make here is that—

  Q137 Mr Williams: But did anything not ring and say, "hold on, there was that minute or that document I saw in 2002, and now things are escalating even further" with this monitoring you were carrying out? Why did you not detect that something was going utterly out of control?

  Mr Barnett: While I accept that the figures are quite high in and of themselves, against over 2 million applications a year, it was a relatively small number, and partly because after exhaustive and repeated checks my staff were told that the law that prevailed meant that we were not able to carry out more thorough checks. But we are not—

  Q138 Mr Williams: But you never saw fit to mention to ministers that this problem existed?

  Mr Barnett: We directly did not address ministers, no. We believed that IND were fully aware of the concerns and had reached this conclusion, and the fact—

  Q139 Mr Williams: Do you have the impression that IND was severely under-resourced?

  Mr Barnett: No, I did not have the impression that IND was severely under-resourced.


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2005
Prepared 1 March 2005