Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40-59)
RT HON
JACQUI SMITH
MP AND SIR
DAVID NORMINGTON
KCB
24 JULY 2007
Q40 Mr Clappison: In order to assess
this impact, can you just remind us what the present level of
net migration is?
Jacqui Smith: No, I cannot but
I would be quite happy to write to you about it.
Q41 Mr Clappison: Do you have a rough
idea?
Jacqui Smith: One of the lessons
that I have learned as Home Secretary over the last four weeks
is that it is probably a good idea to base what I say on complete
knowledge as opposed to a rough estimate of what the figure might
be.
Q42 Mr Clappison: You have just given
a long speech about the impacts of migration but you are telling
us you do not know what the level of migration is. Yesterday your
government made a very important announcement about housing which
I do not think you mentioned a moment ago in the impacts of migration.
Do you draw any connection between migration and housing development?
Jacqui Smith: Yes, I do. What
is more, the Migration Impact Forum does as well, which is part
of the reason why it includes or it is jointly chaired by a minister
from the Department of Communities and Local Government.
Q43 Mr Clappison: It is there to
advise. It has not taken any decisions. Your government already
knows, does it not, what the level of household formation and
housing demand which comes from migration is. What do you think
it is?
Jacqui Smith: Not only am I not
going to answer questions on the basis of not being confident
about the figures; I am also going to try not to get into the
areas of other government ministers. However, what I do know about
some of the projections around housing growth is that, yes, of
course migration will make a contribution to that but so will
a whole range of other issues like family formation and the different
areas of the country that people want to live in.
Q44 Mr Clappison: This is true but
migration happens to be a very important part of housing demand.
Do you have any idea what the proportion is? Your government has
given a figure.
Jacqui Smith: No, I do not.
Q45 Mr Clappison: Perhaps I can assist
you.
Jacqui Smith: I thought you might.
Q46 Mr Clappison: In a written answer
I received from your government, your government has revised upwards
three times in the last ten years the level of housing demand
stemming from migration. It has gone up from 26 to 31 to 33% which
is a very substantial part of housing demand. You talk about government
departments working together. Here we have a government department
which is telling us that the housing we need to build is three
million over the next 14 years to accommodate the housing demand,
but your government department is responsible for migration, for
issuing work permits and for how many people come into the country.
You two departments should be working together when 33% of housing
demand which you told us about yesterday comes from migration.
Jacqui Smith: I am sorry, but
that is precisely why as departments we are working together.
It is why there has already been a meeting of the Migration Impact
Forum. It is why there is already work under way to consider what
the impacts of migration are across a whole range of government
services. It is why, as well as recognising the considerable benefit
that comes from migration, we are also recognising the impact
on public services. If your charge is that the government needs
to work together on these things, that is completely reasonable
and that is why we are already doing it.
Q47 Mr Clappison: If we are talking
about three million houses which are needed, according to your
government 33%—this is a figure which I am very happy to
give you—it follows that a million out of these fall within
the remit of your department because they arise from migration.
Jacqui Smith: I am not sure what
argument you are making. If you are making the argument that migration
brings with it impacts on a whole range of other public services
and on our communities, my argument is I completely agree with
you which is why this government is working across government
to consider the impacts of migration, both positive and negative.
In that area I agree with you.
Q48 Gwyn Prosser: Is it not the case
that if we accept your opening statement—and I do—that
we need to have immigrants to fill the labour gap and help the
economy grow, we need houses for those people. Either we fill
those houses and grow our economy with people from outside or
we expand and increase the birth rate, which is not an easy thing
to do.
Jacqui Smith: I am not even going
to go down the route of answering how we expand the birth rate.
You are absolutely right. The important point here however is
that the government has both recognised the challenge to this
country of ensuring that we build sufficient houses, which was
precisely the reason why the Housing Minister made the statement
that she made yesterday, and it has recognised the impact that
migration, for a whole variety of reasons, can have both positively
in terms of growing our economy and providing the skills we need,
but also in terms of impact on public services. It seems to me
that that is an appropriate way to respond to the challenges,
whether or not that is in housing or in other areas of public
services.
Q49 Mr Clappison: On asylum, you
have a target by 2011 of granting or removing 90% of new asylum
claimants within six months. You understand that target. Are you
on course with it?
Jacqui Smith: Yes, we are. We
are currently at the situation where nearly 40% of asylum cases
are being concluded through grant or removal within six months.
It is quite important to recognise, firstly, that we realised
the significance of that target and moved from a target that was
previously about the point at which you make a decision to a recognition
that what is important for people is not only making that decision
but also moving to the impacts of that decision. If that is a
decision that enables people to stay, ensuring that those people
do become integrated or, if it is a decision to remove, ensuring
that those people are removed. It is precisely because of the
need to ensure that that happens that, as from March this year
for example, all asylum cases are now being considered on the
basis of what you might call an end to end approach, where somebody
is responsible for that case from the point at which the application
is made to the point at which that is concluded. We have had some
success on that, as I have suggested, in that we are at the point
of nearly 40% of those asylum cases now being concluded through
grant or removal within six months.
Q50 Mr Clappison: Your predecessor
gave evidence before this Committee on how he was dealing with
the old cases of people whose asylum cases had sadly failed and
who remained in the country. Can you tell us how many of those
people are still in the country today and what is your target
for removing them?
Jacqui Smith: No. What my predecessor
actually said was that we now had a programme for dealing with
the legacy cases. I am committed to the priorities that he set
out and the timescale that he set out. I will certainly ask Lin
Homer as the chief executive of the Border and Immigration Agency
to write to the Committee on the progress.
Q51 Mr Clappison: Do you know how
many there are?
Jacqui Smith: The total amount
that was spelt out previously was 450,000 and the target was to
do that over five years.
Bob Russell: When you and other government
departments are looking at immigration, can I ask you to look
again at previous Home Office statistics, which I recall indicated
that immigration has resulted in a net contribution to the national
economy? Successive governments have relied on immigration to
ensure the National Health Service did not collapse. A third one
which perhaps has not been fully appreciated is that 10% of the
British Army is not British. I think that puts into context some
of the benefits. I am the Home Secretary, when she and her government
departments look at the total picture, that those are aspects
which perhaps are not necessarily highlighted in The Daily
Mail and The Sun.
Chairman: I think Bob Russell is saying
that there should be a more balanced approach to immigration than
perhaps we have heard so far.
Q52 Bob Russell: Can you report on
developments in relation to the 1,013 foreign prisoners released
without deportation being considered since the chief executive
of the Board of Immigration Agency wrote to us on 14 June?
Jacqui Smith: Yes. I can give
you an update from the point at which Lin Homer wrote to you.
The key figures at the moment on the 1,013 group are that 563
have now had their cases concluded. That is an increase from 543
when Lin Homer wrote to you. 226 have been deported or removed
which is up from 214 when Lin Homer wrote to you. In a further
302 cases the individual has been tracked down and located and
is going through the deportation process. In the remaining 148
cases, which are down from 149, the individual has not been located.
Q53 Bob Russell: Of those 148 that
have not been located—you have indicated the number has
fallen by one since the last report—how confident are you
that they will be located?
Jacqui Smith: This is obviously
work that is ongoing. There has already been quite considerable
progress that has been spelt out to you on more than one occasion
by Lin Homer. This remains a very important area of the work.
Sir David Normington: As Lin made
clear in her letter, some of them will almost certainly not be
in the country.
Q54 Bob Russell: They have left?
Sir David Normington: Yes.
Q55 Bob Russell: In terms of numbers
of foreign criminals deported, what difference do you estimate
the provisions of the UK Borders Bill, if enacted, will make?
Jacqui Smith: We obviously think
that is important but there has been some quite important progress
already. Firstly, the condition that we set previously that no
foreign national prisoner should be released without first being
considered for deportation has been met since April 2006. The
Border and Immigration Agency is already now considering deportation
cases eight months before the earliest date of release. 2,784
foreign national prisoners have left the UK in the 2006/7 financial
year. That is compared to 1,500 in each of the two previous years.
If performance continues at the current rate, over 4,000 foreign
national prisoners will leave in 2007. It is in order to build
on that improved performance that the new legislation would automatically
consider deportation of foreign criminals as being taken forward
in the UK.
Q56 Bob Russell: What role has the
National Offender Management Service played in work on foreign
national prisoners since its responsibilities were transferred
to the Ministry of Justice?
Jacqui Smith: The transfer of
ministerial responsibility does not of course impact on the work
that is carried out by NOMS more generally. On the specifics of
what their contribution has been, perhaps I could write to you.
Q57 Gwyn Prosser: One of the main
aims of the forthcoming Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill
is to ensure that the UK does not become a safe haven for foreign
prisoners and terrorists. To bring this about, the Bill contains
certain powers with regard to residency and reporting arrangements.
How confident are you that these are sufficiently robust, given
that the penalty for failing to meet the requirements looks as
if it is just 51 weeks imprisonment? Is that sufficiently robust?
Jacqui Smith: We are confident,
having brought them forward, that these measures are suitably
robust. They do mirror those that are already available where
a person is given temporary admission, which have operated for
over a third of a century. The problem here of course is that
we were not in these particular circumstances able to give people
temporary admission because of the Court of Appeal ruling last
year. If we look at the sorts of reporting and monitoring requirements,
the reporting for example would be to an immigration reporting
centre or a police station if there was no reporting centre within
a reasonable distance. The electronic monitoring provisions would
also be available which could be used as part of an overall management
regime with respect to contact. We can ensure that those people
who are given special immigration status are required to live
at a particular address to ensure that we can maintain contact
with them and failure to comply with either residency or reporting
conditions will be an offence for which that individual will be
prosecuted resulting in a fine, imprisonment or both. We do believe
that the propositions we are putting forward in the Criminal Justice
and Immigration Bill will fulfil those requirements, although
this is obviously, as with everything, something we would want
to keep under review. It will be part of the discussions that
will go on as we take this legislation through Parliament.
Sir David Normington: It is important
to say that the Bill creates a stronger presumption of deportation.
Also, it is not just those who receive a prison sentence of at
least 12 months; it is anyone else who has a prison sentence of
any length for a serious crime. That is set out. Of course the
courts can decide to recommend for deportation as well, so this
is quite a big step beyond where we are. We are now considering
deportation well ahead of the act of sentence in a way that we
were not before so we are doing it at the moment eight months
before the end of sentence. That is a big improvement on where
we were before which gives you confidence that we will be able
to deliver on those provisions.
Q58 Gwyn Prosser: Except to say that
for the individual who has been already designated as a foreign
criminal or a terrorist—otherwise he would not come under
these orders—the balance he has to make is whether he should
comply with them with the almost certain chance of deportation
or risk less than 12 months' imprisonment. That does not look
like much of a disincentive to abscond.
Jacqui Smith: These were difficult
circumstances that led to the requirement to put into place this
special immigration status that is in the Criminal Justice and
Immigration Bill. I am, as I suggested, confident that in those
particular circumstances the reporting and monitoring requirements
are appropriate. As David has also said, what the UK Borders Group
does is strengthen even further with respect to other foreign
national prisoners the approach that we will be able to take to
deportation. That, alongside the progress that we have already
seen with respect to foreign national prisoners, is quite considerable
progress in an area which I do not think any of us would agree
has been completely properly dealt with previously.
Q59 Gwyn Prosser: What is the danger
of these new activities on behalf of the borders people detracting
from the remainder of the work?
Jacqui Smith: The very important
review that was carried out into the whole immigration area last
year, the way in which the agency is now operating as a shadow
agency with a clear focus on the strategic objectives that it
is responsible for, some of what I have already seen in the last
four weeks about the way in which the processes and the operation
of the agency have improved, give me confidence about the ability
of the agency to be able to continue taking forward that work
and that progress; but, the reason why I said at the beginning
that immigration will obviously remain a very important priority
for me is because the proof will be in delivering the objectives
and maintaining the progress that we have seen, whether or not
it is on the removal of failed asylum seekers where obviously
we have made very important progress in reaching that tipping
point and where we have seen the lowest levels of coming here
for asylum since 1993; whether or not it is on the enforcement
work where extra capacity has been put into enforcement and we
see an impact; whether or not it is on securing our borders, where
some of the biometrics I was talking about earlier mean that we
are now much better able to stop people before they get to our
borders and, if they should not be coming in, prevent them when
they do get to our borders. All of that is important progress,
as is the structural changes that have been made to the agency,
the regional structure that has now been put in place, the new
focus on the processes that are there. I and Liam Byrne are absolutely
focused on the need to make sure that that progress continues
and it is something we will be watching very carefully.
| 
