Examination of Witnesses (Questions 100
- 119)
WEDNESDAY 26 OCTOBER 2005
HOME OFFICE
AND IMMIGRATION
AND NATIONALITY
DIRECTORATE
Q100 Mr Davidson: Sorry, can I just
clarify that. What do you mean, I can say anything I want, the
first three things are factually correct, are they not?
Sir John Gieve: The first question
was around what you could say. In terms of the facts, I do not
think it is true, no, that the number of removals is going down.
The numbers in the Report showed that it dipped down particularly
after the accession of Eastern European countries which had been
one of the areas to which we were removing large numbers, as you
will see in the Report. There was a dip after May 2004 but, as
Brodie was saying, the numbers have been increasing through this
year and we are determined to keep them increasing in the future.
Q101 Mr Davidson: Can I clarify that
point. Are they up to the level now they were at two years ago?
Sir John Gieve: At present they
are running at roughly 1,300 a month.
Mr Clark: It has not reached the
same level.
Q102 Mr Davidson: So it is a dip?
Sir John Gieve: It is a dip, but
the consideration is—
Q103 Mr Davidson: It is important
to clarify this. You were suggesting that the figures are not
telling the whole story, that there is a dip for one year and
now there is a fall so in fact, the direction tends to indicate
systemic failure even though it is not quite as bad as it was
last year.
Sir John Gieve: It depends on
what your standards are. The fact is, as I was saying earlier,
we believe we are within maybe weeks, certainly months, of getting
to the point where we are removing more unfounded applicants than
are coming in. That will be, to my mind, a considerable success.
The fact that our removals are greater, so far as I am aware,
than any other country I know about has been one major factor
in discouraging people from claiming asylum. That is one of the
reasons why the rate of application is now so very much lower
than it used to be. On your last point about whether this is attracting
people in, the experience over the last few years has been a substantial
down-scaling in the numbers claiming asylum, partly because it
is difficult to get here because of our border controls and partly
because people are discouraged from coming here. If we make that
crossover so people think there is a reasonable chance that if
they claim asylum here they will be removed, this will be a very
vivid demonstration of that and that will reinforce this.
Q104 Mr Davidson: There is an interesting
point about the Eastern Europeans, many of whom would now be eligible
to come under EU freedom of movement and who previously were being
expelled as failed asylum seekers. Do you have an indication as
to how many have come under those circumstances?
Sir John Gieve: We have got the
Worker Registration Scheme under which accession country nationals
can register. I am afraid I have not got the numbers here, but
certainly I can let you have themep[6]
Q105 Mr Davidson: That would be very
helpful. Can I ask about comparing local offices, which is in
paragraph 3.36 where is made mention of comparing the local offices.
Do you have any figures for that to date? I think this exercise
started in April 2004.
Mr Clark: In terms of comparing
local offices in respect of a whole range of their performances
including voluntary returns, family returns and the cost per removal,
I have that information and we are collecting that information.[7]
Q106 Mr Davidson: Can that be made
available to us in a note?
Mr Clark: Of course.
Q107 Mr Davidson: Can you tell us
which is the most efficient and effective office that you have?
Mr Clark: The North East is up
there at the top of the league in terms of performance against
a number of measures. Glasgow is now getting up there in terms
of its performance, but there is quite a bit of movement in these
early stages as the new process has been put into place.
Q108 Mr Davidson: Which is the bottom
of the list?
Mr Clark: One of the London offices
is the bottom of the list.
Q109 Mr Davidson: Can we take it
then that the lessons learned from the most successful will be
speedily passed and improvements made across the board and across
all offices?
Mr Clark: This has been operating
for about four or five months now, and in the short time that
has been operating we have seen that some offices, particularly
those at the bottom end, have quite radically improved their performance.
Can I mention a couple of other things we have done? We have also
taken forward a very systematic review of the performance and
activities within each office, and that has been a piece of joint
work between ourselves and the Prime Minister's Delivery Unit.
That has produced a template for improvement, particularly in
respect of failed asylum seekers. That is now in place and is
beginning to affect and drive forward the performances in a more
well directed way. We have also run a series of training programmes
and workshops for the people running the offices because there
is no point in just putting in targets, and so on, without people
understanding how that should work, how it should operate and
how they can maximise the effects from it.
Q110 Mr Davidson: I presume that
mention of the Prime Minister's Office is meant to reassure us.
Mr Clark: I think it was simply
describing a piece of process we are putting in place.
Q111 Mr Davidson: You accept that
if we come back to this in a year, in terms of local offices for
example, you are quite confident that we will see improvements?
Mr Clark: I am very optimistic
indeed that we will see improvements, yes.
Q112 Mr Davidson: Can I clarify one
point in terms of staffing, whether or not there are any local
offices which you feel are understaffed?
Mr Clark: We have a major recruitment
programme on at the current time and that is to ensure both that—
Q113 Mr Davidson: That is a yes then,
is it?
Mr Clark: No, it is not. What
I am going to explain to you is that in terms of some redistribution
of resource within IND—it almost goes back to an earlier
question about the prioritisation—there has been more funding
resource made available to the enforcement removal side of our
business which is taking forward our recruitment programme and
putting more staff in place into our existing offices.
Q114 Mr Davidson: That is right.
You are recruiting and redistributing, which is an indication
that, yes, some of your offices were understaffed. It is a straightforward
answer.
Mr Clark: No. The money from the
recruitment, or the money which was feeding into that new resource,
was an additional resource on top of what was existing already.
The targets which have been agreed with assistant directors running
the offices are targets which link the requirement to deliver
against their staffing resource which they have.
Q115 Mr Davidson: Can I clarify in
terms of the casework for Members of Parliament—and one
of my colleagues mentioned this—it is now the biggest single
category of my casework. I have whole strings of people coming
to see me—usually sent by the lawyers—where they have
been here between three and five years, further embedding themselves
in the community, many of them now want better housing. They have
lost every appeal and nothing seems to be happening as far as
they can see. Do you accept that brings, as I say, the whole system
into disrepute in local areas such as mine?
Sir John Gieve: From our point
of view what hits public confidence in the Government's control
of immigration is the number of people coming in as well as the
level of people going out. The huge increase in the number of
asylum seekers arriving four or five years ago and for several
years, when removals were very much lower than they are today,
definitely hit public confidence, and was a major crisis for us.
I would say we are balancing that out now.
Q116 Mr Davidson: It is an interesting
response which demonstrates, I think, that we are operating in
slightly different worlds because the impact of immigration, as
such, does not directly affect my constituents, it is the distribution,
as it were, in parts of my constituency. Therefore, people are
not conscious of how many new people might be coming in because
it takes a long time before they reach us. They are conscious
that many of those who are there have lost appeal after appeal
after appeal and are still there and it seems that nothing at
all ever happens. Do you have any mechanism by which information
can be provided locally about whether or not those steps are being
taken on an area basis to reduce the number of failed asylum seekers
in order that I will be able to reassure my constituents that
action is being taken? As I say, it brings the whole system in
disrepute. People in areas like mine are quite happy to welcome
those who they see as deserving, but those who they believe do
not meet the criteria and are here abusing the system they want
to see removed. The fact that is not seen does undermine the credibility
of the entire process.
Sir John Gieve: Of course I accept
that, and we are working hard to remove the people who have no
right to stay there. We have ramped up the proportion of those
whose claims fail who are being removed.
Q117 Mr Davidson: Why is no information
coming out on the steps being taken when we are looking at Scotland
or Glasgow in order that I have information about the steps, that
action is being taken?
Mr Oppenheim: What might help
you, if I may, is that as part of the letting of new contracts
for support we are also building in some mechanisms to liaise
with the local government further, the police, the voluntary sector
and other communities with interests, in all the 12 government
regions where we can provide a range of information about who
is coming through the system, not individually but in global terms,
who is coming into a region and who is meant to be departing that
region. We are determined to try and provide more information.
Q118 Mr Davidson: Are the MPs part
of that?
Mr Oppenheim: They are not part
of that. It is a relationship we have with local governments and
the voluntary sector.
Q119 Mr Davidson: MPs are more stakeholders
in this than many other people because, of course, not only is
it the biggest caseload for some of us, it is squeezing out other
work that I ought to be doing. People definitely have an interest
in these things. It seems to me that the lack of willingness of
your Department talking MPs very much at all about these cases
is unhelpful. My office is constantly told, "That is all
we are telling you". You ask various points and you are told,
"That is all I will tell you", "That is all I will
tell you", "That is all I am telling you" and the
next thing you are banging your head off a brick wall. It causes
enormous frustration. Are you going to have better liaison with
Members of Parliament in the future?
Sir John Gieve: Yes, we are very
eager to have better liaison.
Mr Clark: We are encouraging local
enforcement officers now to develop much better relationships
with the communities in which they are working. That is part of
the regional structure which we are pulling together, and we are
very keen that dialogue is happening with the various agencies,
groups and organisations in that community. It is not where we
want at this stage, we want to get better at it and it is very
important.
6 Ev 20 Back
7
Ev 20-22 Back
| 
