Examination of Witness (Questions 460-478)
MR PHIL
WOOLAS, MR
MATTHEW COATS
AND MR
NEIL HUGHES
17 MARCH 2009
Q460 Gwyn Prosser: Minister, this
is one of the last questions in the brief but probably one of
the biggest flaws, in my view, in the points-based system. You
have said in the past that lawyers tend to use the appeal system
for their own ends, and that is probably contributory to you taking
away the right to independent appeal in the points-based system.
Is there any just alternative to having an independent overseer
looking at the appeals of the authority rather than allowing internal
administrative review?
Mr Woolas: Most countries in the
world do not allow an appeal at that stage. The points-based system
is objective, as Mr Brake and others have been pointing out. We
do, of course, guarantee and require an administrative review
where the decision is challenged, and that must be carried out.
Q461 Chairman: This is an internal
review.
Mr Woolas: That is an internal
review. That process is, of course, overseen by the inspectorate,
but we believe there is a balance here between getting the decisions
right, getting the decisions quickly in a way that benefits our
country, but I can assure you, Chairman, that the decision not
to allow that old system of appeal is nothing to do with the view
of the legal profession. I should say, it was before my tenure.
It would have influenced me, but it did not influence Liam.
Chairman: It is the strong view of the
committee that it should have an independent element and that
there should be a right of appeal and that internal reviews are
not a substitute. David Davies.
David Davies: I thought I was asking
the previous question, which was messed up by a supplementary.
Chairman: If it was asked, you do not
have to ask it.
Q462 David Davies: I will ask it
anyway. If the entry clearance managers are overturning cases
when they are telephoned by law practitioners, does this not indicate
they are just caving in too quickly when somebody from a law firm
rings them up?
Mr Woolas: Just on a general policy
point, I will ask Neil to help me out on some of the other points,
the management of the system, of course, is moving to the spokes
and hubs and that is providing a greater consistency in decision-making
across the world. The answer to your question, therefore, has
to be seen in that context. There is greater management of that
process than there has been before. It is part of general strengthening
of the borders.
Q463 David Davies: We were spending
200 million a year on legal aid for people in the asylum system
and people trying to immigrate here. Is that going up or coming
down?
Mr Woolas: I have not got precise
figures in front of me, but it is coming down, because the numbers
have come down.
Q464 David Davies: Is it below 200
million a year now?
Mr Woolas: I would not want to
mislead the committee. I do not know the exact figure.
Q465 David Davies: Could you write
to me?
Mr Woolas: I will certainly, if
the committee want me to, write to you on that point.
Q466 Chairman: Can I ask you two
further questions. First of all, the cover arrangements. Your
colleague is happily going to give birth very shortly—not
Jackie Smith but Meg Hillier—and she will be off work for
six months, as the law allows her to be. Members of the committee
and myself are concerned about the cover arrangements, that a
very, very heavy caseload is to be divided between yourself, who
already is very burdened—there are 48,000 letters going
into the UK Border Agency every day—and also the Minister
in the Ministry of Justice, which of course is supposed to be
independent of the Home Office. The whole point of taking probation
and prisons away and giving it to the Ministry of Justice and
giving them the appeal system is so that they are independent.
Could you not look at another arrangement that will provide additional
ministerial support rather than the arrangement that you have,
which will put a very heavy burden on ministers, especially yourself?
I am not doubting your capabilities and your devotion to your
job, but to take on the work of another minister at this crucial
time and the operation of the points-based system is actually
going to be quite a burden, is it not?
Mr Woolas: Chairman, I am extremely
grateful. It is the first time a select committee has ever worried
for my welfare; but perhaps it is not my welfare that is the most
important point but the proper operation—
Q467 Chairman: We do care that ministers
are able to make decisions properly.
Mr Woolas: It is a matter for
the Home Secretary, first of all. Secondly, we are, I hope the
committee accepts, making some significant improvements, as indeed
the Hon Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch reported, particularly
in the tracking of Members of Parliament's correspondence and
the registered cases which we are sweeping through now and getting
that backlog rid of. I can only suggest, Chairman, in answer to
your question, that I report it to—
Q468 Chairman: Would you raise it
with the Home Secretary?
Mr Woolas: Yes.
Q469 Chairman: The Mayor for London's
recent survey on illegal immigration suggests that there are 750,000
people who are illegally in this country. There is now a backlog
at the IND of a quarter of a million people. That brings the total
to about a million. He has suggested that there should be an amnesty
for illegal immigrants. What is your view on the Mayor's latest
view?
Mr Woolas: On the point that the
Mayor of London has made, first of all, our policy and our public
position is that, by definition, it is not known how many illegal
immigrants there are in the country. The abolition/phasing out
of border controls from 1994 took that information away. The reintroduction
of border controls is making the situation better, which is why
I was surprised that the policy of the official opposition is
to oppose that border control measure.
Q470 Chairman: But you do recognise
these figures? He has conducted a survey of three-quarters of
a million people, he says.
Mr Woolas: I am very conscious
that Professor Metcalf is behind me, and I think the figures are
from the LSE, but I am not familiar with those figures. We have
not done a detailed study on this for three years now, four years,
so I do not know. What I do believe, and our policy is, is that
if one were to do what the Mayor suggested, it would make the
problem worse, not better, because the pull factor would increase
and the people traffickers would make more money.
Q471 Chairman: But you would not
favour an amnesty for these people?
Mr Woolas: I think an amnesty
is a well-intended road to hell.
Chairman: On that issue, can I bring
in Mr Clappison.
Q472 Mr Clappison: Thank you very
much. Minister, on the question of the future population growth,
economic migration covered by the points-based system is a big
factor in net migration, and net migration is itself a very big
factor in the future population growth. I think you have suggested,
correct me if I am wrong, that you do not accept the prediction
which has been made by the Office for National Statistics, the
Government Actuaries Department and the United Nations that the
population of this country is going to hit 71 billion within a
different timescale in the case of those bodies. You do not accept
that, do you, or do you?
Mr Woolas: No.
Q473 Mr Clappison: No; right. Those
are the figures which come from the independent Office for National
Statistics, the Government's own actuary. You are saying that
they are not right.
Mr Woolas: No, I am not saying
that they are not right, Mr Clappison.
Q474 Mr Clappison: Are you saying
that the population is not going to hit 71 billion by, say, 2031?
Mr Woolas: That is my belief.
Q475 Mr Clappison: If that is your
belief, it is a very unsatisfactory situation for people who are
concerned about this issue, where there are statistics coming
from an independent body and from the Government's own actuary
and the Government itself is saying that they are wrong. Can you
write to us and let us have your prediction for what the population
growth is going to be, if you are saying they are not right?
Mr Woolas: No, I cannot, because
you are misinterpreting, I think deliberately. The ONS figures
give an extrapolation of population based on the previous number
of the last few years. I think it is three from memory. Those
population figures define population as being those people who
are in the country for 12 months or more. Clearly, that, therefore,
includes overseas students, it includes everybody who comes into
the country under the points-based system. Those people are here
temporarily for up to five years. So to extrapolate and to turn
that into a projection is a false logic. Secondly, my view is
that, even if it were a projection, not an extrapolation, the
policy measures that we are taking would avoid that increase in
population.
Q476 Mr Clappison: You are arguing
about the definitions, but they accept the definitions and they
are prepared to make a projection on that basis.
Mr Woolas: It is not a projection,
Chairman, it is an extrapolation. The ONS have made that clear.
Q477 Mr Clappison: Okay, so they
make an extrapolation. You are saying you do not accept, or you
do not believe that extrapolation. Can you let us have the extrapolation
which you believe?
Mr Woolas: No, Chairman. The point
that Mr Clappison is pushing on is a fair point and a very important
point of public debate, but to suggest that there is no difference
between extrapolation and projection is to suggest that, because
this room filled up at 11 o'clock this morning at a rate of one
person per minute, the population of this is room might well be
500. That is clearly nonsensical. The population will be affected
by our points-based system if one includes within the population
temporary residence under five years. The population definition
of the ONS is a year. Those two things are very different. Our
objective, and, Chairman, this is the very serious point for the
debate in this country over the next generation, I would say,
is that we have never been able to show to the British public
that we know how many people are here temporarily and how many
are here to settle. With our policies of counting in and counting
out and the Citizen Bill, should the House grant it, we will be
able to do that, and that, I think, will provide a reassurance
to the British public that Mr Clappison and other members of the
committee, I think, would support.
Chairman: Could we have a final question
from you, Mr Clappison.
Q478 Mr Clappison: I am suggesting
to the Minister will he do this on the same basis as the Office
for National Statistics? They were happy do it on the basis which
he has described, to make that extrapolation, and, in fact, the
figures for net migration have, in many cases, proved to be an
underestimate and they have gone up every year for the last ten
years.
Mr Woolas: And they include temporary
people.
Chairman: Minister, thank you very much.
Yesterday the committee went to Luna House and we were given a
presentation of the work people were doing there. We are very
grateful for that opportunity and, no matter how the system works,
we would like to pay tribute to the staff who work in the MPs'
correspondence unit, who do a great job in responding to all of
us. Thank you very much for coming, Mr Hughes, Minister and Mr
Coats.
| 
