Examination of Witnesses (Questions 160-169)
FOREIGN AND
COMMONWEALTH OFFICE,
UKVISAS, AND
THE HOME
OFFICE
21 JUNE 2004
Q160 Mr Bacon: Mr Jeffrey, do you get
paid a bonus of any kind, or are you eligible for a bonus of any
kind?
Mr Jeffrey: I am eligible for
a bonus.
Q161 Mr Bacon: How is it calculated?
Is it on the basis of targets that you meet?
Mr Jeffrey: It is calculated on
the basis of assessment of the Permanent Secretary.
Q162 Mr Bacon: But are there targets
that you have to meet in order to be eligible for a bonus?
Mr Jeffrey: The targets that are
reflected in my own job plan for the year are certainly ones that
need to be met, and broadly have been.
Q163 Mr Bacon: Again, going back to this
document I was quoting from earlier, a letter to the Leader of
the Opposition, the suggestion is that essentially the operation
of policy by senior managers was designed to ensure that the statistics
were cleaned up, and that therefore bonuses were paid. Is it correct
that bonuses get paid in relation to the achievement of targets
in relation to the processing of applications within your directorate?
Mr Jeffrey: It is not as straightforward
as that. The bonuses are paid on the basis of the line manager's
assessment of performance throughout the year, but there is an
extent to which the organisation as a whole is working to targets.
The best example of that is the extent to which we were seeking,
following the announcement made by the Prime Minister, to impact
greatly on the number of asylum forms, which, as an organisation—and
this is not about individuals—we succeeded in doing.
Q164 Mrs Browning: Following that, I
have a question for Sir Michael. When visa applications are subject
to rigorous scrutiny and proper process what then happens statistically
to asylum applications from that country? I am not talking about
the sort of process we heard today, but when the system is working
properly, what is the usual consequence to asylum applications
from that country?
Mr Jeffrey: I am not sure that
I completely understand. The question is, is the relationship
between the increase in the number of ECAA applications over the
period we have been discussing this afternoon and the asylum applications
from these countries; there was a separate NAO investigation some
weeks ago which concluded that there was no such evident correlation.
It is also the case that Ken Sutton could find none in his inquiry,
and our own judgment is that if you look at the figures over the
period in question, the number of asylum claims from all of the
eastern European countries, and not just those where this peak
was occurring, dropped off. We believe that was largely associated
in the early part of 2003 with the Government implementing its
provisions for non-suspensive appeals in relation to safe countries,
and there was a very sharp reduction in the number of asylum claims
from eastern European countries.
Q165 Mr Steinberg: Will you be re-looking
at all these applications?
Mr Jeffrey: One of the things
Mr Sutton's report did find was that he estimated, on the basis
of figures that he was given by the department, that no more than
about 150 or so had worked their way through to the point of being
granted permanent residence; so first of all there will be an
opportunity, as these people come forward, having been given initially
a year's stay to set up a business, to examine very carefully
whether they actually did so and whether that business is flourishing.
Secondly, we are going to deploy, on Ken Sutton's recommendation,
some of our enforcement resource to look into these cases and
see whether people did in fact set up in business as they claimed
they would.
Q166 Mr Steinberg: Or?
Mr Jeffrey: Or not.
Q167 Mr Steinberg: What would be the
alternative, if they did not set up in business?
Mr Jeffrey: If they did not set
up in business, I think these things are a matter of judgment.
One of the judgments that, having gone into it quite carefully,
Mr Sutton did reach was that if people were arriving for purposes
other than those proclaimed in their application, it was much
more likely to take paid employment than to fall into the benefit
system. He did not discover anything to suggest that that was
happening . . .
Sir Michael Jay: Forgive me, Chairman,
I need to correct one answer I gave just now to Mr Jenkins. It
is not true that there is an automatic check on criminal records
of all applicants. The position is that entry clearance officers
can ask for checks on the police national computer, and routine
checks are made in all cases against the warnings index, which
will contain, or often contain some police information.
Q168 Mr Jenkins: The reason I asked—and
unfortunately I did not have the name—one of my constituents
went off to Turkey with her friend, and they both brought back
a boyfriend. Her boyfriend got refused clearance, but she was
shocked because her mate's boyfriend had been convicted of gun
crime and had been in prison in Turkey. Since it was four or five
years ago, I was hoping that maybe this system had gone. But in
this country, when you realise how many criminal gangs there are
in London now, a lot of them are imported—you have let them
in. We have enough of our own criminal gangs without bringing
any more in. So if we are not making arduous and studious checks
on criminal backgrounds and criminal activities, we should be.
Mr Jeffrey: The warnings index
ought to pick up serious criminals of that sort. Sir Michael is
right to say, though, that we do not routinely check the criminal
records of all applicants.
Q169 Chairman: Gentlemen, thank you very
much. Mr Jeffrey, there is one thing I have to ask for a note
on, and that is that Mr Sutton in paragraph 1.27 on page 8 said
that his inquiry looked at a sample of applicants. I would like
to know more about that sample, how big it was and what happened
to these people who set up in business. [6]Gentlemen,
thank you very much for coming here this afternoon. We are seriously
concerned about this. You seem to be launched on a policy that
you cannot evaluate, and this is contrary to all modern notions
of government. You appear to have very good evaluation systems
as to how well people are meeting their targets, who are actually
processing 40 applications a day; but you seem to have very weak
systems for tracing these visa holders once they get to this country.
I am sure it is something we will want to return to in our report.
We have had a considerable discussion this afternoon about the
affair of Mr Cameron, but it does reveal a lamentable lack of
co-operation between your two departments, gentlemen. Thank you
very much. Have you enjoyed it?
Sir Michael Jay: I have found
it educative and I have learnt some lessons for the future, which
is something that we all very keen to do just at the moment, Chairman.
Chairman: A very diplomatic answer, Sir
Michael; you will go far in the Foreign Office! Thank you.
6 Ev 22 Back
| 
