BEVERLEY HUGHES MP, MR BILL JEFFREY AND MS ANGELA RAMLAGAN-SINGH

TUESDAY 4 MARCH 2003

  660. Exploited of course by hooligan elements in the political field, and I am talking about the ultra right and the rest.
  (Beverley Hughes) Of course, that is why this issue can be and is being highjacked by those with a completely different agenda. The concerns of ordinary people in communities who see some of this abuse and have concerns about the number of people here illegally, nonetheless, are valid. As politicians I believe absolutely that we have to take those seriously and be thinking of doing something about it. I really share that with you.

  661. The Government's record in this particular field will be judged, would you agree, Minister, by how far you are able to minimise the delay between those who have no right to stay in the country and their actual leaving?
  (Beverley Hughes) I certainly think that is one of the important variables. As I said earlier, reducing the number who come in, in the first place, is equally important; because if you can do that then you are obviously dealing with a smaller group of people and the task becomes more easily manageable; and also the visibility of your success in dealing with people becomes more apparent.

  662. May I just look a little further at this issue of delay and look not at delays between ultimate refusal and removal but rather at delays earlier on in the system—delays which may encourage people to build lives here while they are quite genuinely waiting for a decision. You gave a rather rosy picture of where you would like to be about working with people through the various stages of their applications, and preparing them for removal at the end of it; but the reality is very different. Those of us who, unlike one of your ministerial colleagues, have not banned all asylum seekers from our surgeries are regularly presented with cases of people who come and they have got a port reference; they have got solicitors' letters; the address that they initially gave is the same as the address at which they are still living; and sometimes, 16 months down the line, they are still there waiting for a determination. All the time that they are waiting for that determination they are beginning to build lives in this country, which is what makes removal difficult when the time comes. Indeed, as the Home Secretary acknowledged the week before last during questions, the longer you leave it and the more people build lives here, validly, while waiting for a decision, the more complex removal becomes. What can you do that is serious and effective about actually responding to queries from people who are waiting for a decision over inordinate periods of time and whose complaint to me all the time is, "They won't tell us what's happening. We can't get through. Nobody seems to have their finger on this particular case". That seems to me still to be a significant area of failure?
  (Beverley Hughes) I think you are raising two issues in there. I want to clarify with you that my understanding of the question does raise two issues. One is the actual period of time for the determination and its various stages; and, secondly, you are raising a point about people saying they are finding it difficult to get information and replies to letters within a reasonable period of time. On the former, that has been one of the most important objectives that we have already referred to several times in this session, to reduce right down the period of time that it was taking for somebody's determination to be concluded. We have made legislative changes I have just referred to in order to prevent people extending that process through successive legal challenges but, for our side as well in IND and in the Immigration Appellate Authority, setting targets within which we want to see cases determined. For the initial decision, which is undertaken by caseworkers, we set a target in successive years for certain percentages to be determined within six months. We are already exceeding that target. I think the target for this year is 65% determined within two months, and we are doing well over 70% of cases within two months. I am not saying 70% is the end of the road, but we have made enormous progress, I hope members would agree, in that stage of the determination with so many now decided within two months. We need to continue to make progress at the two other points in the system. One is the time taken for the Home Office to prepare the bundles, as they are called, to be sent to the Appellate Authority; and then for the Appellate Authority to determine the appeal; and we are seeking a target of four months there—envisaging a six-month process for most of the applications. We are on course to achieve that substantially. In relation to queries, this is a problem. It is a problem I meet as Minister because MPs continually write to me, often not simply to say, "Please don't remove somebody", but to say, "Can I please have an answer to my letter of three/four months ago". I have made, with Bill Jeffrey and others, really very considerable efforts to make sure that just generally in terms of administration we bring IND up to the standards that you would expect of an excellent public service; and it is not there yet, but what I can tell you is that we have put processes in place that, starting with MPs' correspondence, working through official and public correspondence, we have plans and mechanisms in place to drive up performance on that. I am seeing performance increase. We have also improved the MPs' hotline; and colleagues have said to me that they have noticed the improvement in the MPs' hotline. We have substantially strengthened that with back-up teams of caseworkers so queries can be answered properly. Right throughout the system the delivery plan that has been produced in relation to SR2002, whilst much of that is about the high level targets we need and want to achieve in relation to the asylum system, we know that much of that depends on having a strong, well organised organisation administratively. We have now a substantially new team at directorate level, and are going through the rest of the organisation in terms of new appointments, and not a wholesale reorganisation but strengthening the capacity of the organisation; and the objective of delivering administratively and organisationally is as important to me as some of these very high level more political objectives around asylum and how we manage it. I will ask Bill just to say a bit more about some of the detail because it is a very important issue that you have raised.

  663. Before he answers, can I just try and focus on what I am saying which is that you get people who arrive and obey the rules at least as far as determination is concerned; but that the point from arrival to determination can often be, I would say, excessive. If you are 70% there, nearly one-third of people are still facing long delays. In between that point and long before they come to an MP who then writes to you, they are trying to get information on the progress of their case and getting absolutely nowhere at all. It is fairly easy, and we have all done it, to talk about targets and statistics. What I would like to know is when we are going to notice a step change in the number of those people coming to see us?
  (Beverley Hughes) Both in terms of the time taken and their problem in getting information—in terms of the former, I am not saying that 70% is enough but we started where we started, and we are where we are. We want to drive up from that. That 70% has to increase to 75% and go beyond that. You will know, because of your experience, that you simply cannot click your fingers and change from a system with long delays in it to making sure everybody has their claim determined within six months within the space of a year. You actually have to build on building the capacity; build the practice experience and do that as quickly as possible, but you cannot do that overnight. I am not being complacent; I am simply saying to you that we have made progress, and will continue to make progress. I accept that some people in that 30% are not having their cases decided in anything like two months of the initial decision. We need to improve further. I also accept your basic premise that the longer people are here in this country legitimately waiting for their claim to be determined, yes, the factors that make removal more difficult in terms of them putting down roots and making relationships become more difficult. We have an obligation to keep that timescale as short as we can. On the information flows I will look particularly at that issue with Bill Jeffrey in terms of people's queries about the process of their application. As I have said, more generally it is part and parcel of complete reform of IND administratively which is a continuing process.
  (Mr Jeffrey) Could I just make two points. Firstly, as the Minister says, I do not think any of us—including any of the staff who work hard in IND but sometimes do not produce outcomes that they themselves would be happy with—would want to say the general administration of the Directive is as it could or should be. What we are about now, and it is the larger part of job, is to change the organisation, to change the performance that we provide, not least to Members of Parliament. I am sure Miss Widdecombe would say that the proof of that pudding is in the eating and I certainly agree with that. We are determined to improve things like the quality of the public inquiry service and the telephone enquiry bureau and we are making some progress. On the main issue the Committee is discussing today perhaps I could just add two facts to what the Minister has said. On appeals we are currently receiving something like 4,000 appeals a month, and the Appellate Authorities are disposing of something like 6,000 a month; so there is steady progress in that area. In relation to intake, the reason we are getting the asylum intake down, as crucial as it is, is that if we can get it down we can then begin to eat into these older cases. It is true that we are much more on top of the more recent cases that we ever were before; but if we can reduce the intake to the point where we are gaining ground by eating into the backlog of around 40,000 that the Minister mentioned then there really is a chance that we will get substantially on top of the problem. This month, without going into specifics for reasons that the Minister gave earlier, we have determined a thousand or more cases in excess of those we received. There is a sense in which if we can keep getting the intake down we can actually make some inroads not only into the current cases but into the backlog as well.

  664. Minister, is it correct that an increasing number of countries are not accepting the common format European Union letter and Chicago Convention travel document as valid documentation for people being returned? If that is the case, why? Are you able to say which countries are the main offenders, as it were? What action is the UK Government taking to try to redress that problem?
  (Beverley Hughes) It is true that there is a slight increase in the number of countries no longer accepting EU letters. I think it is about 30 countries in all now which do not accept them. Not all of those countries are significant from a removal asylum seeker point of view—obviously places like Germany and New Zealand—but others are: Algeria, Sri Lanka, India and China, for instance, do not accept those documents, and that is significant. Obviously without a travel document, even on charter flights, we cannot remove people without a travel document. Some countries also have quite a long verification process before they will issue a document. As I said earlier, we are doing a number of things to try and address that issue, including diplomatic negotiations with some of those countries to try and unblock that issue. It is a significant issue for some people in terms of removing them.

  665. Is progress being made with those main players you have just mentioned?
  (Beverley Hughes) Yes, with some of them.

  666. So watch this space?
  (Beverley Hughes) Yes.

  667. Minister, many witnesses have expressed disapproval of the way in which removals from homes are carried out. The Immigration Advisory Service said, "We are concerned at frequent reports of cases where persons reporting to the Home Office are taken into detention without any prior warning and removed the following day without them being able to collect their personal possessions or make arrangements regarding their accommodation, engagements etc. IAS has personal examples of this inhumane treatment". Why, therefore, is it being done?
  (Beverley Hughes) As I said earlier, the removal teams and the local enforcement officers have to make a judgment based on the history of the case as to whether people are likely to resist removal. Certainly it is my information that in the case of family removals usually a pastoral visit is made before removal. In some cases, if there has been evidence of attempts to frustrate removal then, yes, some of those visits do take place unannounced, and they can take place in the early hours of the morning, because that is when we expect people to be there. I think those instances are kept to a minimum. I have had some feedback from colleagues recently about the way in which particularly difficult removals were conducted praising the removal team that arrived. Yes, there are difficult issues here; and if we want to increase the number of people that are removed then, as the Director General said recently, we do start from the position that most people do not want to go. Therefore, in some instances that is the procedure that has to be adopted.

  668. The Immigration Advisory Service do not agree with that scenario, because they then go on to say, "There is little evidence to the contrary that in most cases persons informed that they must leave will do so in an orderly fashion without the need for detention". While accepting there will be the cases of the type you referred to, the Immigration Advisory Service are saying that they are very much in a minority. That being the case, could I ask you and your colleagues to look again as to whether the early dawn raids and so on are necessarily the right picture that the Government should be putting out; or is that a deliberate picture that they put out?
  (Beverley Hughes) No, it is not a deliberate picture, in the sense that we want to execute a removal in the most straightforward way possible. In fact, a removal of that kind requires a lot of resources. We have police presence. We have to have a warrant to enter. It is highly organised and orchestrated and takes a lot of time and preparation. If there are alternatives for some people then we will use them. I do not accept at all what the Immigration Advisory Service is saying. I wonder what their contentions are based on; because our experience is that, in fact, many people do not want to go and that does raise issues about how you manage an effective removal. Even as members of the Committee you have talked to people in removal centres and surely got a clear picture that there are many people who do not want to go, and even at the point of being detained and taken to an aeroplane will try and frustrate that removal. We have to respond to the behaviour that people demonstrate. In some stances, in order to remove people, we have to undertake the procedure in the way you have outlined.

  669. No doubt the Immigration Advisory Service will read your response and communicate with you accordingly. How frequently are people removed mistakenly where they have not finished all the stages of their asylum claim; and if there are such cases, are they audited; and what are you doing to avoid them?
  (Beverley Hughes) There have been a very small number of cases, certainly that have come to my attention, where people have been removed before their process has finally ended. That has usually been as a result of a very late representation not being communicated to the removal centre in time to stop that removal. We have been looking at the systems in relation to particular cases as to how we strengthen that.

  670. I appreciate that. Just as an aside, Minister, the compassionate way that the Government wishes to proceed, there are occasions when there are children in this country who are at school who have school exchange trips overseas, are you able to provide documentation to enable a child under the age of 18 to travel with a school party and then return to the UK? Clearly they do not have documentation otherwise. Is there such a provision?
  (Beverley Hughes) Yes.

  671. Finally, Chairman, is there any monitoring of what happens to people returned to their country? Is there any risk to them when they are handed over to the immigration authorities in the receiving country? Is Chechnya regarded any differently to any other part of Russia?
  (Beverley Hughes) On the former part of your question, clearly there will be some support for those people who return voluntarily; that is part of the package for voluntary returns, to have some in-kind support—not cash; and some resource is spent on establishing people when they get back. Generally speaking, for enforced removal that will not be the case, no. People are going back to their country of nationality, and I do not think it would be reasonable to extend the remit of the immigration and nationality department to actually finding out what happens after they have returned to their country—other than making sure, as there is in most instances, that one of the voluntary agencies that we work with (such as the International Organisation for Migration) will be there and is available for people to give them further assistance if that is required.

  672. What is the definition of nationality for those people from Chechnya?
  (Beverley Hughes) I think you raised this last time.

  673. I know, and I shall keep on raising it.
  (Beverley Hughes) The applications from people from Chechnya are decided in the same way as every other application on the basis of their individual merit. Chechnya is an integral part of the Russian federation. For those people who are of no interest to the Russian authorities there will be no issue if their claim fails of returning them, possibly to somewhere else within the Russian federation. Some people will not be returned. It really does depend on their individual cases; and in that sense they are treated in exactly the same way as every other applicant.

  674. We return people to Chechnya, do we?
  (Beverley Hughes) I need to check if we have returned somebody actually to Chechnya. We have certainly returned Chechnyans to other parts of the Russian Federation.

  675. Minister, trying to understand a bit the basis of the decision taken to detain someone prior to removal. Is there a series of risk factors that are looked at? How is that judgment made? It is a question we asked at Harmondsworth and I did not quite understand the answer.
  (Beverley Hughes) There is a series of criteria for staff to use, including when we need to establish somebody's identity—and obviously if they are one of a group that at the moment can be fast-tracked through the Oakington process—where we do not think somebody will comply with any conditions that could be attached to temporary admission, or in order to effect a removal.

  676. And what percentage of those who are not detained abscond or fail to co-operate with the removal directions?
  (Beverley Hughes) I cannot give you an overall figure for that this morning. It varies in relation to different groups in that overall population, to be honest. You might be talking about people given temporary admission. Are you talking about asylum claimants?

  677. Yes. It is a very difficult thing we are asking you to measure but the purpose of the question really is to try and work out are you detaining the right people and how do you measure whether you are detaining the right people and how can you have a rolling improvement to your system so that you only use detention when it is necessary. There must be some indicator that you use and it might be useful for our final report to know a bit more about that.
  (Beverley Hughes) We are trying to use detention in an increasingly selected and targeted way and trying to keep the period of detention as short as possible and focused on the point of removal. You are right, we do need, I think, to look increasingly strategically at both removals generally and how we use detention to support the strategic priorities in relation to removal and that is some work that is going on at the moment. We have been reviewing internally and across government how removals are executed. That review has produced some action points that we think we can take forward and I think one of the most significant—and you have talked to some of the arrest teams/enforcement teams—is that whilst there is a very strong commitment amongst the teams to removing people and improving performance, we could do better if we had a clearer set of strategic priorities about how we might do that and what particular groups of people within the total population of asylum seekers it might be useful to have a priority on and, secondly, how we use detention to support that strategic objective.

  678. There is one group of people it has been put to us that it should not be necessary to detain which is those who have got family or substantial property and business here. Surely, they are less likely to abscond before removal?
  (Beverley Hughes) I cannot disprove the implied contention in your question that there might be significant numbers of people who have got those established roots whom we have detained, but I would be very surprised if that were the case. With families it is sometimes more difficult. There are some families in detention but, by and large, certainly in relation to the families I have seen and am aware of, they are not families with well-established roots here but are families that have come here very recently.

  679. Do you have a figure for the proportion of detainees that have not completed all the legal stages of their asylum claims, those who are still going through the process?
  (Mr Jeffrey) We might be able to get that, I do not have that with me.