Examination of Witnesses (Questions 880
- 899)
TUESDAY 23 MAY 2006
RT HON
JOHN REID
MP, SIR DAVID
NORMINGTON KCB, MS
LIN HOMER
AND MS
HELEN EDWARDS
CBE
Q880 Mr Winnick: There will be a
report to the House?
John Reid: I will be happy to
report back to the House or to this Committee.
Q881 Mr Winnick: Finally in this
batch of questions, Home Secretary, can I ask you about the understandable
concern of parliamentarians and the public at large about
those who have been released from prison, foreign nationals, subject
to deportation where no action has been taken; what about the
numbers involved in re-offending?
John Reid: I will stand corrected
on the detail of this, but on the most serious and more serious
categories, I think we have had eight re-offenders. I will explain,
one of the reasons why the initial figures were sometimes wrong
was because of the systems. Another is actually on a more rational
ground, Chairman. Of the 1,023 originally, now 1,019, we gave
an original estimate of what we considered the most serious and
the more serious categories. That was on the basis of the information
we had about their most recent conviction. Two things happened,
one of which Mr Winnick just mentioned. One is that we carried
out scrutiny and study of previous convictions which resulted
in some of those more and most serious categories expanding now
to 186; and, secondly, I redefined the category, that is the more
serious category. It is my view, and this is a matter of judgment,
armed robbery ought to have been in it and that was added. Even
if no violence was used in the robbery, in my view, it was still
a serious offence. The third thing that happened is we also studied
re-offending, and Lin Homer will give you the exact figures for
that now.
Ms Homer: 20 have been reconvicted
of offences categorised as "more serious", of which
six were sex offences, none against minors; three were violence;
and 11 were ABH or GBH. There is a further category of re-offenders
which are the other offences to which the Home Secretary has referred.
To date we have identified 184 of those. There is a small amount
of checking still to be done. Those are convictions, six for robbery,
29 for drugs offences, seven for burglary, then others for driving
offences, fraud, theft, deception and other minor offences.
John Reid: We can supply them
in detail to the Committee. The inference of Mr Winnick's remarks
I entirely agree with. We ought to be in a position, when I have
managed to deal with the present problems, of saying that anyone
who is a foreign national who comes to this country and enjoys
the privileges of this country and commits a serious offence,
for which there is a custodial sentence, should be deported full
stop. That is what we should be aiming for. There are all sorts
of difficulties, we know, but the presumption should be that anyone
who is here who is a foreign national who does not, in return
for the privileges and rights of being in this country, observe
our laws and commits a serious offence for which there is a custodial
sentence given should face deportation.
Q882 Mr Winnick: The victims of such
re-offending as Ms Homer has just told us will obviously say that
if the Home Office had acted as it should have acted they would
not have been the victims of such criminality and, therefore,
the responsibility lies with the Home Office insofar as the foreign
nationals were allowed to stay in this country, and that is a
very heavy responsibility.
John Reid: I inherit that responsibility,
and it is that responsibility and the awareness of it which drives
me to the conclusion that nothing less than a full and fundamental
overhaul of this Department and this Directorate will be sufficient.
Mr Winnick: Blaming Sir David's predecessor
presumably!
Q883 Mr Clappison: Dr Reid, now that
you have assumed your ministerial responsibilities and looked
at this problem, I imagine from what you have said already that
one of the things which might have concerned you was that some
of those who had committed what you described as the "serious
offences", which I believe are those involving sexual offences
and violent offences, and the most serious offences, which are
those involving murder, manslaughter, child sex offences or rape,
that some of those people were released without the authorities
knowing what had happened to them or where they were?
John Reid: Yes, that is obviously
a concern. It was over a period of seven years so the task of
the police now is very difficult. I know they are putting in a
huge amount of resources, as are IND and Probation and others,
but it is not easy once mistakes like this have been made over
a period of time for the police to discover some of these people.
Fortunately most of the most serious people have been detained;
the four murderers are in prison. Most of the more serious have
now got a decision on deportation. I think there are three who
have not: one has turned out to be a British citizen; one the
courts, despite us opposing the court decision, have decided they
can stay; and I think the other one is still being considered.
Q884 Mr Clappison: Can I ask you
about the most serious category, which includes manslaughter and
murder (and I think we know about the murders) child sex offences
and rapists. Am I right in thinking that there are some out of
that category that you do not know where they are?
John Reid: Yes, there are some
in that category, out of the 37, that we have not yet detained.
Q885 Mr Clappison: Am I right in
thinking that the number is about eight?
Ms Homer: Yes, it is eight.
John Reid: It is not "about
eight", with the caveat that that is from an unreconstructed
Home Office.
Q886 Mr Clappison: You will understand
the concern of the public, that these people have committed very,
very serious offences in the past. You have been looking for them,
I think, for at least a month, have you not, and have still not
managed to find them?
John Reid: Not personally. I have
been in charge of the Home Office for two weeks and three days,
and the police have been looking for them during that period and
before.
Q887 Mr Clappison: You will share
my concern that they have not been found yet. Would you consider
publicising who these people are and the details of their offences
so the public could assist on this and so we could see it, for
example, on the front page of the newspapers?
John Reid: If the police thought
that would help us to discover them, rather than to alert them
or whatever. This is, I believe, an operational decision for the
police. If the police tell me that they would like something then
of course.
Q888 Mr Clappison: You said that
your objective is that non-EEA nationals who are given a custodial
sentence should face deportation. In using the word "face"
do you mean that they "should be" or they "should
be liable" to be deported?
John Reid: No, I mean there should
be a presumption that they are deported.
Q889 Mr Clappison: A "presumption"?
John Reid: Yes, that they should
face deportation. I cannot make it any more plain.
Chairman: We will come on to that issue
in later questioning, Home Secretary.
Q890 Mrs Cryer: Home Secretary, can
I ask you about updated figures. According to our updated figures
we have started considering the case for deportation against 778
released criminals but do not know where 533 of them are. What
are the chances of ever deporting them? What is being done about
the 241 other cases where there has not yet even been an initial
decision to deport? Can I add to that a personal query I have
thought of the last day or two and that is: once you have been
through all this trouble, this work, of deporting prisoners (and
perhaps Lin could reply to this) what is to stop them re-entering
the country perfectly legitimately as a spouse? If they did that
there would be absolutely no criminal records check on them and
there would be no supervision of them?
John Reid: I think what you have
pointed to are the sorts of failures or inadequacies of the system
which I have tried to address honestly in my statement to Parliament
today, by saying these are the very things we ought to address.
For instance, if you do not have a unique identifier when you
go into prison, which is recognised across the police, the Home
Office, courts and the prison then it becomes very difficult to
make sure that you can be tracked from beginning to end. What
we want to do (and this is partly another subject for the National
Offenders' Management System) we want to try and track someone
right through the process. You are also right that this is not
just about foreign nationals, it is about immigration policy.
I am very clear, the view on immigration at this early stage is
uncluttered by sophisticated structural thinking and that is:
illegal immigrants should not be coming here; if they get here
we should find them; and when we find them we should deport them.
That is basically what I believe. There are a few obstacles to
that: if you do not have a system that is computerised; if you
do not have identification; if you do not know the number here;
and if you do not know the number leaving. These are not problems
explicit to me or even to Labour home secretaries; they have been
problems that have pre-existed for 20-odd years. I am going to
try to address some of them. I cannot promise you I will solve
all of them, but I think there are things we can do to make it
easier to do that which we want—which is keep illegal immigrants
out, find them when they are here and deport them when we find
them.
Q891 Mrs Cryer: Would this identifying
number come into play with people who were entering the country
perfectly legally as a spouse?
John Reid: Who had previously
been given such a number?
Q892 Mrs Cryer: Yes.
John Reid: ID cards, I have to
say, would help in this as well but that is another topic.
Q893 Mrs Cryer: Would the post abroad
in any way know that?
Ms Homer: The question you asked
about re-entry would not be correct for a deportee. A deportee
would not be able to re-enter as a spouse. That would be the case
for someone administratively removed who subsequently, not necessarily
through marriage, made the right application; but a deportee would
be barred. Obviously if we had fully biometric systems at ports,
ID cards, as the Home Secretary has indicated, and a unique number
that would all help us run a checking system that could be more
effective.
John Reid: At the moment I thought
the question Ann was asking was: what about these 1,023 who have
not actually been considered or found; and, if they left, could
they get back in? They could not get back in.
Ms Homer: If we are pursuing deportation
we would have entered them onto our warnings index and would bar
them.
Q894 Mrs Cryer: The post abroad considering
them for permanent immigration would somehow know that when they
interviewed the person?
Ms Homer: If they did all the
right checks and looked at the information then, yes, their deportation
order being pursued would prevent them making another superficially
legal application.
Q895 Mrs Cryer: How is it that some
part of the Home Office is unable to find a convicted murderer,
who would have been released on licence and therefore subject
to recall to prison at any time?
John Reid: We have all the murderers.
The four murderers are in prison.
Q896 Mrs Cryer: So there is no problem
there?
John Reid: Not as long as we keep
them in prison, but do not hold your breath! There is a serious
point that out of the 37 most serious offenders we have not managed
to find eight. That is not due to inadequacy by the police or
lack of effort; they have been given a very difficult task, because
these releases range over a seven-year period. In the most serious,
in the case of the murderers, they have been detained and they
are in prison.
Q897 Chairman: Of the eight, Home
Secretary, how many, if any, are nominally subject to supervision
by the police; and, if that has broken down, why has that broken
down?
Ms Edwards: I am not sure whether
we have that information here today. We could check that information.
John Reid: Can I send that to
the Committee, Chairman.
Chairman: That is at the core of Mrs
Cryer's question. Foreign prisoners or not, serious prisoners
who are released are supposed, in many cases, to be subject to
continuing supervision and we do need to know whether any of the
serious people we are now looking for should in fact have been
somewhere where the Probation Service could have done that.
Mr Clappison: Also the 83 serious offences
as well—serious violence and sexual offences.
Q898 Chairman: If we could extend
that same query.
John Reid: Let me ask if we can
get an answer from the Offenders' Management Service at the moment,
and then we will write as Mr Clappison asked.
Ms Edwards: All the offenders
who would have been subject to supervision would have been supervised
at some point. The problem is, as the Home Secretary has said,
this is over a period of years. Some of them would have been supervised
but not still be subject.
Chairman: I think what the Committee
would like to know is how many of those were at least nominally
subject to supervision at the time you started looking.
Q899 Mrs Cryer: Sharon Beshenivsky,
the WPC who was shot in Bradford, was my constituent and now the
rumours are that this chief suspect has gone off to Somalia. When
he was reviewed for deportation it was decided that it was a dangerous
place to send him. Apparently we are hearing rumours that he has
gone back there. What I want to ask is: what can we do about that
sort of case? Would we be seeking extradition—because I
do not think we have any arrangement with Somalia—or do
we just leave him there; and if we leave him there, there is a
danger he will come back and commit another offence?
John Reid: I am not in a position
to speculate about a specific case, but let me put it like this:
if such circumstances were to arise you could be sure we would
not just leave him there. You could be sure that we would make
representations at the highest level, for instance through Cabinet
colleagues who might be talking to the heads of such states.
| 
