Examination of Witnesses (Questions 900
- 919)
TUESDAY 23 MAY 2006
RT HON
JOHN REID
MP, SIR DAVID
NORMINGTON KCB, MS
LIN HOMER
AND MS
HELEN EDWARDS
CBE
Q900 Mr Spring: Home Secretary, I
just wanted to turn to the whole question of deportation policy,
and just remind you of what the Prime Minister said on 3 May:
"I think that it is now time that anybody who is convicted
of any imprisonable offence and who is a foreign national is deported".
The following week he narrowed this to "foreign prisoners",
and last Wednesday 17 May he talked about "the vast bulk"
of foreign prisoners. You in your statement today have talked
about a new prioritisation which has consideration according to
the degree of risk a person poses to the public. This is what
you have defined today, and you have alluded to a 12-month sentence
for non-EEA nationals. What I would like to know from a practical
point of view, because this is exactly what the public needs reassurance
about, what is the practical effect of introducing a presumption
in favour of deportation as you have set out and echoing what
the Prime Minister indicated before?
John Reid: Can I first of all
relieve you of the confusion, Mr Spring, that you seem to have
between my objective, as described to this Committee which I stand
by—which is to see that all foreign nationals who are in
this country and given a custodial offence face deportation—and
what you picked out from the back page of my statement—which
is actually a short-term priority given the resource implications
we have at the moment—which is a statement that we should
concentrate our resources on this 1,023, on the very serious crimes
which have been the subject of questioning from all of your colleagues
around the table. I think they are two different things and I
would not like you to add that into some other redefinition, because
obviously if you confuse what I am saying we ought to do in the
short-term with my long-term objectives you will find a discord.
Let me go back to what I have said consistently and that is: foreign
nationals who are in this country who commit an offence which
is sufficiently serious to get a custodial sentence should face
deportation. That is where I stand. If you are asking me at the
moment what would be the obstacles to actually giving effect to
that in every case, which is maybe what you are asking me, there
are a range of obstacles, some of which relate to our own rules
and regulations, for instance. If you look at the Immigration
Rules, Rule 364, which is what you must consider before you deport
someone from this country, you will find that they are cast much
more widely than the Human Rights Act. Therefore, we have taken
a burden upon ourselves which I think we should relieve ourselves
of, and that is one of the points I have made in the eight-point
action plan today.
Q901 Mr Spring: Of course we all
accept that you have resource pressures and you have administrative
pressures and you have to set out a priority, nobody is disagreeing
with that; however, you have set this out and public opinion does
need to have some assurance on this. The question is: if you are
going to prioritise considerations for deportations as you have
set it out in all cases where non-EEA nationals have been given
a 12-month prison sentence, how are these to be assessed? This
is a perfectly reasonable question. I accept that this is a short-term
one, but one which I think we need to understand a bit more about.
John Reid: Basically what I am
considering, far from liberating or liberalising the regime, is
actually considering cuffing it. What I am saying is, actually
rather than equating together those who have committed a serious
offence for which they get perhaps years in prison and somebody
who had had three offences for a parking fine and not paid their
television licence, I think what the public are concerned about
are those at the end of the scale that can be called "serious".
At the moment we denote "seriousness" by saying a 12-month
sentence. What I would do is say, "Never mind the parking
fines let's reduce the 12 months to six months"; so that
anyone who has served six months, or an aggregate of six months
from several offences, ought to face deportation. That is what
I think in the short-term we should do in concentrating our efforts.
Q902 Chairman: That is in dealing
with the backlog?
John Reid: That is dealing with
the backlog; that is right.
Q903 Chairman: And future cases?
John Reid: No, where I want to
get to—
Q904 Chairman: Before you change
the law, I mean?
John Reid: What I want to do is
deal with the backlog by being tougher on those who have committed
the more serious offences. Where I want to get to I have outlined,
which is exactly as I have described, which is that all foreign
nationals who have a custodial sentence given to them will face
deportation. To get from where we are in dealing with the backlog
to where I want to get to, I have set out for you in the written
Ministerial Statement, for your discussion, consideration, debate
or whatever, the eight priorities I think ought to be actioned
on deportations and, incidentally, it goes on to those who are
false asylum-seekers and illegal immigrants as well, and then
I have given five directions to the Permanent Secretary about
the quality of the systems, the people, the management and the
leadership that are necessary to accompany those points. I hope
that is clear both in the short term dealing with the short-term
problem and the long-term one. I do not claim that it is perfect;
I have only had two weeks to examine it, but I can assure you
I have spent a lot of time on it when not dealing with illegal
immigrants, statements to this Committee, absconders from open
prison, 7/7, parole board and the various other things which make
the Home Secretary's life interesting.
Q905 Mr Spring: Home Secretary, your
predecessor said that in the two calendar years 2004 and 2005
around 3,000 foreign national prisoners were deported. I think
our understanding is that the total foreign national prisoner
population is just over 10,000 currently. What I think would be
of interest to know is how many foreign national prisoners considered
for deportation are actually deported or removed per year, what
proportion this is of the total and what impact, and I absolutely
accept that this is a short-term presumption, this is going to
have, and have any projections been made of what the impact will
be on foreign national prisoners by the introduction of this presumption?
John Reid: I am going to ask the
Chief Executive to answer those detailed questions, if I might.
Ms Edwards: You are right, there
are 10,232 foreign national prisoners which is a significant increase.
We have seen the numbers go up very much. We have a number of
schemes in place where we want to work closely with IND to increase
the numbers who are deported. I would look to Lin Homer to give
the actual figures of the rate of deportation at the present time,
but we have the Early Release Scheme that we are using and we
also have arrangements to repatriate prisoners where they agree
and the country agrees to take them back, so we have a number
of measures in place and a much closer working with IND colleagues,
I think, means that we expect to see the numbers over time in
our prisons go down.
Q906 Mr Spring: Is there any estimate
with regards to what the Home Secretary has actually announced
today as his priority, and we understand that, but is there any
estimate of the increase in numbers?
John Reid: Increased numbers of
deportations?
Q907 Mr Spring: Yes, as a result
of this presumption.
John Reid: I have not got the
estimates yet. What I would say is that the emphasis is on putting
people who are in prison with custodial sentences out and not
implementing those who are not in prison because they have had
very minor offences, so the emphasis will be away from the rule
which I mentioned earlier which has appeared to change over time
from unknown authority and never been implemented. What I am saying
is that, if I were to implement that now, it would divert resources
away from dealing with the 1,023, so there will be more effort
going into deporting prisoners as a result of this, so more will
be deported than would otherwise be the case.
Q908 Chairman: We understand, I think,
the policy, Home Secretary and, if you cannot give us the answer
today, perhaps you could come back to us. Clearly the implication
of what you are saying is that a much higher proportion of the
foreign nationals who are in prisons will in future be deported.
I think the Committee would like to have an estimate from your
knowledge of that stock of people of whether that is going to
be 100% of them, 75% of them, 40% or whatever. At the moment you
do not, for example, generally deport people at the lower end
of that scale who are married to a British citizen with children
because that is what your own rules to your own officials say.
Is that going to change, is that going to be overridden and, if
you could come back to us in the fairly near future with an estimate
about the actual impact on the number of deportations, that would
be enormously helpful?
John Reid: I will do that. Just
so that you understand that this is not just driven by resources
or the present crisis, it is actually, in my view, a better, tougher
and fairer way of dealing with it. I give you the example that
at the moment, if somebody serves a prison sentence of three days
three times, they will automatically be up for deportation or
indeed three days and two fines outside, whereas, if somebody
serves several sentences of 10 months or something like that,
they do not fall into that category, so making it an aggregate
toughens it up, but we will come back with those figures.
Chairman: Thank you.
Q909 Gwyn Prosser: Home Secretary,
we have gained the impression that most of the controversial decisions
not to deport have been taken by Home Office officials rather
than the courts. Today you hade made a statement in order that
all decisions on deportation are now made according to the most
robust interpretation of the requirements of international obligations.
John Reid: Yes.
Q910 Gwyn Prosser: But would you
accept that, up until now, there has been an over-developed human
rights culture in some parts of the Home Office and that officials
effectively have been putting the rights of murderers and rapists
ahead of the rights of the British people to be kept safe?
John Reid: Well, I think that
is a big accusation. I am only in there two weeks, so I could
not comment on that, but what I will say is this: that the rule
which determines what those officials will judge as cases for
deportation, whether they will have to be more careful of people's
rights before deporting them and make it more difficult to deport
them, that rule actually comes in from 1984. In other words, the
rules were written in 1984 under the last Government, which are
far more liberal, if you like, than even the Human Rights Act.
Secondly, the judgment which makes it more difficult for us to
deport, which is a judgment from the European Court of Human Rights,
which says that, in considering the deportation of someone to
an area where his safety may be at risk or he may be at risk of
death or torture, you cannot take into account the safety, security
and the rights of the rest of the British people if he stays here,
that judgment is actually 1996. In other words, it was under the
last Government as well and before the Human Rights Act came in.
I am all up for scrutinising legislation, whether it is the Human
Rights Act or anything else, and interpretation and our competence
in administering it in the Home Office, which is the point you
made, but I think it is slightly more complex than people make
out. The two most difficult sets of regulations, I think, the
European Court of Human Rights' decision of 1996, which you may
well be aware of, and paragraph 364 of the Immigration Act, which
I think is from 1994, both were inherited by this Government,
so it is not quite as simple as saying that it is all down to
the introduction of the Human Rights Act by this Government.
Q911 Gwyn Prosser: Can we expect
that quite robust statement, that order to officials to need backing
up with changes to the Human Rights Act?
John Reid: What I have said to
them is that what I want to do, as one of the eight ways of getting
from where we are to a more robust system of dealing with deportation
and illegal immigration and so on, is to make sure, before anybody
starts criticising an Act, whether it is the Human Rights Act
or anything else, that, if our own regulations are much wider
than would be otherwise obliged under that Act and, therefore,
make it more difficult for us to deport people, we should reduce
those regulations in keeping with the Human Rights Act, but do
not extend endlessly beyond it. That is one of the things I have
asked them to do, to be more robust in being on the side of the
law-abiding majority of citizens of this country and to put more
emphasis on their rights. I believe that is what people want in
the immigration system; they want a fair system, one that is fair
and effective, and I do not believe at the moment that in every
area people believe it to be that.
Q912 Gwyn Prosser: We have been talking
about decision-making rather than administration. In terms of
administration, you have noted in your statement that there is
the issue of silos and effectively you are saying that you want
more joined-up government within that particular department of
the Home Office. Now, there is a view which has been expressed
that sometimes people are being released simply because the Prison
Service was not notified by the Immigration Service about the
status of a particular prisoner, so he was just released. I have
been told, Home Secretary, by an immigration officer, who was
an enforcement officer, that it was his job from his side of the
process to telephone one particular number at the prison as a
particular prisoner came close to his release date and he said
that it was as simple as this, and I had this discussion before
this became a big issue: that he had one telephone number, no
email contact and no other process, and that telephone number
was used by the public and he said, "I could phone up seven
days before, five days before, three days before and eventually
the day would come when I would say to my colleagues, `There's
another one been released'", meaning a foreign prisoner with
a serious criminal conviction. Does that make sense?
John Reid: It does not make sense,
but I believe you. It is precisely for these sorts of reasons
that I have asked the Permanent Secretary as well as my two other
colleagues to make sure these systems work. What you have got
in many of these cases of the 1,023, and I will stand corrected
if any of the officials want to do so, but what you have got in
these cases is faxes and phone calls, faxes getting piled up and
paper files. I was in Lunar House the other day and, God knows,
the staff are working away there, but there are files so thick
sitting on top of each other in trays and systems and so on. The
minute I walked into that, especially if you go unannounced because
you then find out some of the things which would be more tidy
if you announced you are going, and when I talked to the staff
when I was there, and I know the Permanent Secretary in his short
term has been out there and seen this as well, these whole systems
were trying to face a 21st Century problem with a late 20th Century
system, and it falls to me to try and build on what my predecessors
have done. My predecessors have addressed the technical aspects
of this, the legal aspects of this and, in many cases, the resource
aspects, but in fact, even if you change the policy, change the
law, change the technical aspects of it and put in more resources,
unless you have a fundamental overhaul of the system, I do not
believe this is going to work, but that means we have to be in
this for the long haul.
Q913 Bob Russell: Home Secretary,
I wish you well as you sort out the mess you have inherited and
could I suggest that one way of regaining a lot of public goodwill
in many parts of the country is to drop the police mergers, and
particularly that in Essex! Home Secretary, did ministers know
that officials had been encouraged not to go after foreign prisoners
in case they claimed asylum?
John Reid: Not to my knowledge,
no, not as far as I am aware.
Q914 Bob Russell: How many foreign
prisoners have been repatriated to serve their prison sentences
abroad?
John Reid: Do you mean out of
this 1,023?
Q915 Bob Russell: In total, where
the courts have sent illegal immigrants to prison, how many of
those have actually been sent overseas to serve that sentence
either all or in part?
John Reid: Last year the figure
was 108, and I am still wearing the health warning, but the figure
I have been instructed to say is 108. If that should change, which
may well happen, I will write to you.
Q916 Chairman: Home Secretary, perhaps
we could move now to the question of illegal migrants and their
removal. We have been told that there is a target of removing
12,000 non-asylum cases a year and that it is being met. Can you
tell the Committee how that target was agreed?
John Reid: How is the target—sorry?
Q917 Chairman: Agreed. Why 12,000?
John Reid: I am going to ask,
if you do not mind, because I do not know the methodology behind
the target, Lin Homer.
Ms Homer: My understanding is
that this is a target which we set ourselves aligned to the amount
of resource we had and to improve on our previous years' performance,
so it is a target that is an improvement and is aligned to the
number of resources we have got.
Q918 Chairman: So basically the target
of 12,000—
Ms Homer: It is a management target.
Q919 Chairman: is the number that
you thought you could achieve if everybody worked hard and it
has not been set in relation to the number of people you need
to remove to get on top of the illegal migration problem?
John Reid: There is another indication
of why we need to look at this system. I think you always obviously,
and I am not defending the indefensible here because that decision
was made the wrong way round if that is the case, but you always
have to bear in mind the resources which are there, but we ought
to be trying to tackle the problem on the basis of what is the
extent and nature of the problem.
|
