Oral evidence: Work of the Home Office, HC 356
Oral evidence, 29 November 2023.
Witnesses
Sir Matthew Rycroft and Simon Ridley.
Chair
Good morning, everybody. Welcome to this meeting of the Home Affairs Select Committee. This is our annual meeting with the permanent secretary at the Home Office to scrutinise its work and the annual report and accounts that have been produced. You are very welcome today, Sir Matthew. Mr Ridley, would you like to introduce yourself?
Simon Ridley
I am Simon Ridley, second permanent secretary at the Home Office.
Chair
We have lots of questions for you, as you can imagine, and we will probably run until about half-past 11. I will start with some questions about Rwanda, which is obviously the top subject that Parliament is concerned about at the moment. First, Sir Matthew, in terms of the arrangements for payments, £120 million was paid to the Rwandan Government when the memorandum was originally signed in April 2022, and a further £20 million has been given to them since, so we are at £140 million.
Sir Matthew Rycroft
Yes, that is correct, Chair.
Chair
Has anything else been given to the Rwandan Government?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
There are additional payments each year. Ministers have decided that the way to keep you and other colleagues in Parliament updated is, once a year, to set out the total additional payments to the Government of Rwanda, and we will do that in the annual report and accounts. The figures that you set out—the £120 million, plus the £20 million—are the payments from the 2022-23 financial year. Any payments in 2023-24, we will announce in the normal way in the next annual report.
Chair
So further payments have been made.
Sir Matthew Rycroft
We will announce that in the normal way next summer.
Chair
Right. So we have to wait until the summer to find out if further payments have been made. You are not able just to say yes or no.
Sir Matthew Rycroft
I am able to say that we will ensure transparency by setting out once a year what the total payments have been in the course of the last financial year, rather than giving a running commentary.
Chair
If any payments were made, what would they be for?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
They would be for a mixture of the migration and economic development partnership that the United Kingdom has with Rwanda, and the specific costs for housing the relocated asylum seekers in Rwanda.
Chair
So you are saying that there could be some payments for housing, even though nobody has been sent to Rwanda yet.
Sir Matthew Rycroft
The way that the agreement between the two Governments is constructed is that there are some fixed costs and there are other costs that depend on the number of people being relocated from the UK to Rwanda.
Chair
So if housing is sitting there available, you are saying that that is a fixed cost and that an ongoing payment would probably have to be made each year for that housing.
Sir Matthew Rycroft
There are ongoing payments from the UK to Rwanda in terms of the partnership between the two countries. The other costs will depend on the number of people.
Chair
Could you break down what the costs in the memorandum would be?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
I think I have broken it down already into the two different types of payments. First, there is the economic development partnership, which is about the United Kingdom supporting the Government of Rwanda in the economic development of Rwanda. The second type of payment is the—
Chair
Sorry, what does that mean?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
The £120 million was an example of that; it is payments that the UK makes to Rwanda in order for the Government of Rwanda to build up their capacity and capability as a country.
Chair
Right. There is a lot of talk about a treaty being signed by the UK and Rwandan Governments. Will a figure be attached to that? Will a sum of money be paid for that treaty to be entered into?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
The negotiation of that treaty is ongoing; in fact, there is a Home Office and wider team in Kigali as we speak, putting the finishing touches to that negotiation. It would be premature to say anything about the content of that; the Home Secretary will want to announce it to the House in the normal way.
Chair
So you are saying that some payment could be due on the signing of a treaty.
Sir Matthew Rycroft
No, I am not saying that. I am just saying that, as and when there are any additional payments, they will be announced in the normal way, which, as I say, is annually in our annual report and accounts.
Chair
It is really quite hard, Sir Matthew, to effectively scrutinise the flagship policy of the Home Office and how much is being spent on it, when we get the figures only at the end of the year. Do you see our problem?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
Ministers have decided that the way to update Parliament is annually, rather than by giving a running commentary, and that is what—
Chair
So they could choose to give a running commentary if they wanted to—they could choose to be clear about what was being spent.
Sir Matthew Rycroft
I don’t think anyone wants to give a running commentary on something like that, particularly when there are commercial sensitivities. As you can see, a lot of other countries are interested in the UK’s agreement with Rwanda, and a lot of other countries who receive a large number of asylum seekers are very interested in the sort of arrangement that the UK has with Rwanda. It would be commercially sensitive to give, if you like, unnecessary additional information prematurely.
Chair
Okay, let’s try something else: can you tell us the cost of the court cases that have gone all the way up to the Supreme Court? How much is the Home Office paying in legal costs?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
I don’t have that number in front of me, but I am happy to write to the Committee with it.
Chair
We would like to see that. If any individual goes to Rwanda, if the scheme is deemed to be up and running, what is the cost that you have allocated per person to remove someone to Rwanda?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
That is commercially sensitive as well, but broadly speaking, the costs are about the same as they would be if the person were staying in the UK.
Chair
And that is how much?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
As I say, I’m not at liberty to pass that on.
Chair
So you can’t say how much it costs to keep someone in the UK and process their claim?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
I can say that, and I say that it is broadly the same amount included in the agreement between the UK Government and the Government of Rwanda.
Chair
The figure that came out in the economic impact assessment, which came out in June, of £169,000 per individual being removed to Rwanda—is that not a correct figure?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
That’s not a correct figure. I think I recall saying at an earlier session of this Committee or the Public Accounts Committee that we did not recognise that figure.
Chair
Who produced that figure?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
I’m not sure.
Simon Ridley
That’s from the impact assessment that went alongside the Bill. I think that is the figure you are referring to.
Chair
Who produces that?
Simon Ridley
We produce that in the Home Office. It is a figure that is derived from a range of different costs, because obviously there are different costs per person depending on the circumstances and depending on support. As the permanent secretary says, the agreement with Rwanda itself is commercially sensitive. It is a private agreement between us and the Rwandans, so those figures do not imply anything about the cost we are paying to Rwanda.
Chair
I’m confused now. The Home Office has produced an impact assessment saying it costs £169,000 to send someone to Rwanda.
Sir Matthew Rycroft
No, it didn’t say that. The impact assessment did not say that.
Chair
What did it say?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
I can’t remember exactly what the £169,000 was, but it wasn’t that.
Chair
I’m going to check what the £169,000 was, because it was clear from the impact assessment that the cost to send someone to Rwanda was much higher than to process somebody in the UK. I think we had a previous Minister in front of us who told us he thought it would be about the same cost of about £12,000 per person. Do you recognise that figure?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
I’m not going to say any particular figures. All I am saying is that the per-person costs that are part of the agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of Rwanda are broadly the same as the costs would be for a person in the UK.
Chair
We’ll check what the £169,000 is, because I think we need to get some clarity—if it is a figure from your Department but you do not seem to recognise it—about what it is.
Simon Ridley
It’s a combination of costs based on different ranges and different assumptions of the different stages of the process, in terms of bringing people through Manston, detention and removal. It is not the costs of the agreement with Rwanda.
Chair
No, but it’s the cost that you have said for someone arriving on a small boat, if the Illegal Migration Act were in force. They come on a small boat, they go through the Manston process, they are detained and then they are removed to Rwanda. The cost of that is £169,000. Is that right?
Simon Ridley
That is a figure based on a set of different assumptions about numbers and different assumptions, therefore, about the deterrent effect and a set of things that we do not know for the purposes of providing the impact assessment. It is not a point figure that is precisely what we will be paying; we can only use a set of assumptions and a set of estimates, and that is what we have produced in the impact assessment.
Chair
I’ll try something else with you. In terms of the work that you have gone on to do, on the basis that the Illegal Migration Act would be enacted and the Rwanda policy would work, can you tell us how many staff are involved in setting that up? How many members of the Home Office are engaged?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
A large number. There are some existing members of staff and some new members of staff who we have recruited in recent months in order to be ready, had the Supreme Court decided that the existing agreement was lawful.
Chair
What’s the number? How many?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
I don’t think I have the exact number. Simon might have it.
Simon Ridley
There is not a single number. At this point in time, we have built up staff in the small boats operational command, which is in Border Force, in terms of providing a casework team.
Chair
So what’s the total? Do you know how many people are actually putting this policy into operation? That is what I want to know.
Simon Ridley
I don’t have a single number, because it is not work that is completely separate from the day-to-day work of the Home Office. We will be using some people in the small boats operational command, which we have increased by about 600 people. We are using them every day. We will use some of them when the IMA comes into force.
Sir Matthew Rycroft
To give another example, Chair, I was in Belfast recently and met the team of caseworkers there. They were just about to start their training to be one of the teams of caseworkers for the Illegal Migration Act. They completed that training and were ready to go. Now that we know that that casework is not going to be needed just at the moment, they have gone back to other duties. So we could count them in that number, or we could count them in a different number. There is lots of other work for them to be doing to clear the asylum backlog.
Chair
I have a figure of over 600 people being used to set up the Rwanda policy. Do you recognise that?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
We certainly recruited a lot more than that in recent months, many of whom will be ready to do this.
Chair
But is it correct that 600 people are involved in the operational side of the Rwanda policy?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
As Simon says, I don’t think it is realistic to give a number, because people are doing other things as well.
Chair
Okay. I want to ask about a couple of other things. One is about the Immigration Service Union, which was saying that a number of detention places that would be used for asylum detention had been kept empty on the basis that the Rwanda plan would be in operation. Is it correct that 500 asylum detention places are currently vacant because of the Rwanda work that is going on?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
Simon might want to say more, but the short version is that, yes, that is correct. In order for the Government to be ready to go as soon as the Supreme Court took its decision, we were ensuring that there was space in our detention estate to detain the people who would be on the first flights to Rwanda. Of course, there are costs to be paid in terms of other people who are therefore not being detained in that estate, and that is a judgment for our immigration enforcement colleagues to be making day in, day out—how best to use their estate.
Chair
And where are they? Where are the people who would have been in the asylum detention places? Where are they currently?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
It is not like the prison estate, where people are there for a very long period of time. Typically, you come into the estate only for a small number or days or weeks before your removal from the UK to a safe third country.
Chair
So you have taken 500 out of the estate, and it is not a big estate to start with. Where are those 500 people who would be in the estate? Where are they based at the moment?
Simon Ridley
It is not quite right to say that we were keeping 500 beds empty. That is not what we were doing. We have been running the IRC estate very close to capacity over time, and particularly over the summer, as we took in more foreign national offenders from prison. In the run-up to the Supreme Court judgment, we started to create space for the first arrivals. The first way in which we do that is by running weekly charter flights: as a charter flight goes out, that frees up a number of beds. There are other returns that are happening on a regular basis.
Chair
So what’s the number of places that you are keeping empty?
Simon Ridley
We began to create space, the beds—
Chair
Yes, but what is the number? I just want the number—that’s all.
Simon Ridley
We have been bringing people back in since the judgment, so we are now building back up to being at capacity.
Chair
Okay, so the Immigration Service Union is not correct in saying that 500 places are empty. That is not correct.
Simon Ridley
I don’t think there are 500 empty—I don’t know what the number is today.
Chair
You can’t tell me the number.
Simon Ridley
I can’t tell you what the number is today. It changes every day.
Chair
Perhaps you can write to me about that.
Sir Matthew Rycroft
We will write with the specific number. The bit they are right about is that this is an example of prioritisation. Stopping the boats is the biggest priority for the Home Office, getting the first flight off to Rwanda is a very important part of stopping the boats, and therefore we have been doing everything necessary to get the first flights off to Rwanda if the Supreme Court judgment had gone the other way.
Chair
Okay, fine. I just want to go back to what happened in April 2022, when you sought a ministerial direction for the policy because you didn’t think it provided value for money, given the lack of evidence of a deterrent effect, which is what this is all about. We have had a number of exchanges about this issue over the months since then, and you told me you were going to evaluate it and come forward with a methodology for determining whether the deterrent effect was going to work. Clearly, the Rwanda flights have not taken off, but have you got to the point now where you know how you are going to evaluate whether the scheme provides value for money?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
First of all, Chair, I keep the judgment about value for money, and indeed the other accounting officer tests—feasibility, regularity and propriety—under constant review, as you would expect. I will write to you and the Public Accounts Committee if there are significant changes in those judgments. So far, there are not. Just to repeat, it was not the case in April ’22 that we knew for sure that this would not be value for money—
Chair
Did you know it would be?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
We didn’t have the evidence that it would be because, as you said, the value-for-money judgment depends on the amount of deterrence that the policy does. Clearly, something is deterring people from crossing the channel, because the numbers are over a third down on last year. At the beginning of the year, we were expecting, as our best case, the numbers to be as high as they were last year. Something is deterring people. It is very hard to tell how much of that is the possibility of being relocated to Rwanda, particularly, as you suggest, before the first flights to Rwanda have taken off.
Chair
It is worth pointing out that the blip last year with the Albanians has gone. That is why the numbers are down. You can take the Albanians out of the numbers, but the numbers coming across from all the other nationalities are slightly up. It is worth reflecting on that. I know that the Prime Minister talks a lot about the deals done with Albania, but if you put that to one side, the numbers are still up on small boat crossings from other nationalities.
Sir Matthew Rycroft
First of all, the fact that the number of Albanians is down is a very important part of the Home Office’s work to stop the boats. It is a successful example of an agreement between the Government of this country and the Government of another country—in this case, Albania. Those sorts of arrangements are obviously possible with other countries as well.
Chair
Yes, but there is only Albania at the moment, isn’t there?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
The nationality of the people crossing the channel goes up and down in different years.
Chair
Well, it’s been going up. That’s the key issue.
Sir Matthew Rycroft
Well, some nationalities have gone down.
Chair
Afghans are the top nationality at the moment, aren’t they?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
Absolutely. Some nationalities are going up.
Chair
Okay. I am going to come to Lee Anderson, because he is following up on the Rwanda questions.
Lee Anderson
Yes. Thank you, Chair. We know that once the Rwanda scheme is working—hopefully it will be working—we will accept special cases of refugees in return. Could you please tell me, Mr Rycroft, how many that will be, what the cost is and who pays for it?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
There is no number agreed with the Government of Rwanda for that. What you are referring to is the fact that, if a Rwandan has come across on a small boat or has made any other illegal entry, they would not be able to go back to Rwanda. It is those sorts of people we are talking about.
Lee Anderson
No, I’m not referring to that. I am referring to an agreement in place whereby we accept special cases who live in Rwanda that they can’t cope with. They may be people with mental health problems or medical problems. What number do we expect, what is the cost and who pays for it?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
That is part of the partnership with the Government of Rwanda—
Lee Anderson
I know that.
Sir Matthew Rycroft
I don’t think we have a number in mind.
Lee Anderson
You don’t know?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
There isn’t a number, just as there isn’t a number for the total number of people going to Rwanda.
Lee Anderson
So it could be one for one.
Sir Matthew Rycroft
It won’t be one for one.
Lee Anderson
So you do have a number.
Sir Matthew Rycroft
We don’t have a number.
Lee Anderson
Okay. Well, that’s not very helpful. The accommodation in Rwanda is obviously sat there empty at the moment. At what cost?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
That is a cost that the Government of Rwanda is bearing.
Lee Anderson
So what is the weekly cost of that accommodation? What are we paying for and not using?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
The way the agreement between the two Governments is structured means that we are not paying the actual cost. We are paying a certain amount, which is based on an assessment of how much it will cost. The actual costs are paid for by the Government of Rwanda, and they bear any risk if those costs happen to be higher than what we accounted for.
Lee Anderson
Okay, let’s try a third question, which we will probably not get an answer to. If the Rwanda scheme does not go ahead, what is plan B?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
I think that the Prime Minister, Home Secretary and other Ministers will be the right people to answer that question. The Home Office is putting a huge amount of effort into continuing to make the Rwanda scheme work. That is our top priority. As I mentioned earlier, we have a team in Rwanda at the moment negotiating a treaty—
Lee Anderson
Yes, I know that. Are you currently working on a plan B?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
Of course, we do all sorts of contingency planning the whole time, so there is lots of planning going on, but I would not want to call it a plan B. That would sound as though there is some very specific thing that Ministers have already decided, but they haven’t. When they do decide, they will make the announcements in the normal way.
Lee Anderson
I don’t want to be rude, Mr Rycroft, but I will ask you one more time: are we working on a plan B? Are you working on a plan B for if the Rwanda scheme fails?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
We are working on lots of ways to stop the boats.
Lee Anderson
All right, that’s me done, Chair; I can’t ask any more questions.
James Daly
So what are they? What are these “lots of ways”? You say that you are working on lots of things. Can you tell us about them?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
Yes. As the Home Secretary has said, there are lots of other parts of the strategy. There is the legislation, the Illegal Migration Act, which Parliament has already passed. There are ongoing conversations with other Governments around the world about the possibility of reaching an agreement with them. And, of course, there is a lot of work upstream, as we say, to help with this deterrent effect, to prevent people from seeking to make these illegal and dangerous journeys in the first place.
James Daly
Okay. You said that other countries are very interested in the relationship we have with Rwanda. Which countries are we talking about?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
There are lots of countries. I was in Germany last week and they are interested, just to take one example. I should think that pretty much—
James Daly
Explain what you mean by “interested”. They are looking to implement a Rwanda-style policy—is that what you mean?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
It depends on what you mean by “Rwanda-style”. There are lots of different ways of—
James Daly
We are interested in the Rwanda policy, so I am assuming that they want to implement—
Sir Matthew Rycroft
There are lots of different ways of structuring an agreement between a country that receives asylum seekers and another country. The UK’s agreement with Rwanda is one—
James Daly
Can I put it this way, just to have a straight answer to a straight question: is Germany interested in implementing a Rwanda-style policy—hence the discussions that you have been having with them?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
They are not interested in mirroring exactly the UK’s relationship with Rwanda, but they are—as with other EU member states and other asylum-receiving countries such as the United States—interested in how to prevent people making dangerous and illegal journeys.
James Daly
Okay. I am interested in the legal advice. Now, I am a lawyer, so I understand confidentiality, but could you tell me, when you were discussing the Rwanda policy with Ministers, did you seek the advice of independent counsel?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
Yes.
James Daly
Okay, so independent counsel outside of Government—the Government Legal Service? Sir Matthew Rycroft indicated assent.
James Daly
Okay. As the Chair has already asked, what was the cost of that? Can you give us a figure?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
I couldn’t give you a figure for that, but I can absolutely assure you that the process of stress-testing that policy—or indeed any other new and controversial policy—should be rigorous, but it should also be behind the scenes; it should be behind closed doors and, on the question that you are talking about, as you know, it should be on the basis of a confidential, privileged relationship. I can assure you that that did take place before the Government announced the UK’s agreement with Rwanda in April 2022, and if I had had any concerns about the lawfulness of the policy, I would have needed a direction on things in addition to value for money.
James Daly
Were you aware, following legal advice, that there would be the very real risk that this matter would be challenged in the courts, and that we could have an outcome as we have seen?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
Absolutely.
James Daly
Okay, and Ministers were aware of that?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
Absolutely.
James Daly
Okay. On the new treaty, which you have people out in Rwanda discussing, what is going to be different? What is the thing that is going to make this different from the previous policy, if I can put it that way?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
It would be premature to announce that while the negotiation is still going on. Suffice it to say that the purpose of the treaty is to respond to the specifics in the Supreme Court’s judgment.
James Daly
One of the specifics in the Supreme Court’s judgment was the Court’s view of—I won’t say the reliability of the Rwandan Government, but I think that we know what we mean in respect of that—the ability of the Rwandan Government not to send people back to their country of origin. What is it that is going on that is going to address that point?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
I refer you to my previous answer.
James Daly
Mr Rycroft, you do appreciate that it would be nice to have answers to questions from time to time in respect of these things. We are trying to scrutinise a very, very important policy. Do you not think that we, as a Committee of MPs, are entitled to at least some information about what’s going on? Or is that not really our role, do you think?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
I think your role is to hold to account the Government—in this case, the Home Office. My role as accounting officer is to be held to account personally for the money, and it is the Home Secretary and Home Office Ministers who are accountable to Parliament for the policy.
Chair
I’d like to come back, because I’ve had a look at the £169,000 that I was referring to. Perhaps, Mr Ridley, you might be able to help me with this. The assessment claimed that relocating an individual to this central African country or another third country is estimated to cost £169,000, based on a previous Government scheme. It said: “An estimated unit cost of £169,000 is found for relocating an individual…This cost will only be incurred for people who arrive in the UK illegally.” I am just looking at a media comment, which says: “A Home Office source said the figure is based on a ‘theoretical exercise on costs under the bill’.” Do you recognise that?
Simon Ridley
Yes, I think that’s close to what I said earlier.
Chair
So it’s £169,000 to relocate someone to Rwanda?
Simon Ridley
Well, it’s £169,000 based on a set of estimates of different costs of a theoretical sequence.
Chair
So, as a Committee, we can say that the Home Office’s best estimate is that, if this scheme gets under way, it’s £169,000 per passenger on a plane—on a flight—to Rwanda. That’s right, isn’t it?
Simon Ridley
That’s what we set out in the impact assessment, with those assumptions.
Chair
Yes, so it’s £169,000—very different from the £12,000 I think the Minister said was the cost that he was estimating. He said it was going to be an equivalent cost to what it costs to process asylum claims in the UK.
Simon Ridley
I think they are two different things. There is the cost of the processing of the asylum claim in the UK and the cost of the processing of the asylum claim in Rwanda. I don’t know the full detail of what the Minister said that you’re expressing—
Chair
Okay, but you are the second permanent secretary, so I would expect you to understand—
Simon Ridley
I am just making sure we are comparing the same two things. There is a cost of processing the claims, which is one thing, and then there is the full cost of a removal policy.
Chair
Okay. Tim Loughton.
Tim Loughton
Welcome back, Sir Matthew. Congratulations on the knighthood since you last appeared—in a non-supporting role last time. I just want to come back on this point, to be clear: 15 minutes ago, you said, Mr Ridley, that you did not recognise the figure of £169,000; you now do recognise it, 15 minutes later.
Simon Ridley
Apologies, I don’t think I said I didn’t recognise it—
Tim Loughton
That’s exactly what you said—
Simon Ridley
I said we had put it in the impact assessment, based on estimates.
Tim Loughton
Exactly the phrase that was used was that you did not recognise the figure of £169,000. You now do recognise that figure.
Simon Ridley
Yes, it’s in the impact assessment.
Tim Loughton
Right. So 15 minutes later, your answer has changed.
Simon Ridley
I—
Tim Loughton
I think the answer is yes. Now, Sir Matthew, last time you were here, in your opening comments you said: “There is nothing that the Home Office loves better than a good crisis”. How is that going?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
I was talking then about the culture of the Home Office and the need, in addition to responding effectively to crises, to work at preventing crises, being agile, being flexible, putting more of our effort upstream, in prevention and deterrence. That is what I meant by that phrase: yes, the Home Office is good in a crisis, but it would be even better if we didn’t have so many crises to deal with, by working upstream and preventing those crises.
Tim Loughton
Surely you would only love a good crisis if you were good at handling them.
Sir Matthew Rycroft
There is a culture in different organisations, as you know, and in terms of the culture in the Home Office, one of the things that it celebrates is the ability to rise to a challenge and to deal effectively with a very difficult crisis, so yes.
Tim Loughton
You think the Home Office has “risen” to those challenges in the 16 months since you were last here?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
Absolutely.
Tim Loughton
You do. What’s the top priority of the Home Office at the moment?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
The top priority is to support the Home Secretary, and his priorities are to stop the boats, to support the police, to cut crime and to protect the British people.
Tim Loughton
The top priority as set out in the annual report and accounts in September—to quote you in the foreword—"is to Stop the Boats.”
Sir Matthew Rycroft
Mm-hmm.
Tim Loughton
It is. Okay. Who is the independent inspector that is most relevant to that top priority?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
David Neal would be—the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration.
Tim Loughton
When did you last have a formal meeting with David Neal?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
Well, the second permanent secretary, now Simon, has—
Tim Loughton
No, you.
Sir Matthew Rycroft
I can’t remember.
Tim Loughton
You have never met David Neal.
Sir Matthew Rycroft
I have met him, but I can’t remember when the last time was.
Tim Loughton
You have never had a formal meeting with David Neal, have you, Sir Matthew?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
It is possible I have never had a formal meeting with him, but I am not the person who—
Tim Loughton
It is not only possible; it is the case, isn’t it?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
If you say so. I have met him, and I know who he is, and I know that the second permanent secretary—now Simon—is responsible for holding that relationship.
Tim Loughton
You are the top civil servant in charge of the Home Office. You have identified in the annual report, to which you have written a foreword, and in your comments just now that the top priority of your Department is to stop the boats, and the responsibility for overseeing how that is being done is with the chief inspector, who you have chosen never to meet. Correct?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
I wouldn’t put it like that.
Tim Loughton
How would you put it?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
The structure of the Home Office is such that we have a second permanent secretary, Simon Ridley, whose job is migration and borders. That is the totality of what Simon does, and he does—
Tim Loughton
Your job is also migration and borders, and you are the superior to Mr Ridley.
Sir Matthew Rycroft
My job is migration and borders, plus policing, plus homeland security.
Tim Loughton
You are the top civil servant in the Department, so you might be expected to show an above-average interest in the top priority of that Department, the chief inspector of which you have never met formally. That is the situation, isn’t it?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
I have a very high level of interest in the Home Office’s top priority—so much so that I and we have recruited a second permanent secretary whose sole job is migration and borders. We also have a fairly structured system of relationship management, so that important people such as David Neal know who their point of contact is in the Home Office. In his case, it is the second permanent secretary and the Immigration Minister, and he has formal meetings with those people very regularly.
Tim Loughton
So if David Neal had requested to meet you as part of his role, you would have agreed to meet him.
Sir Matthew Rycroft
I would be absolutely delighted to meet him.
Tim Loughton
So why haven’t you responded to his request to meet you?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
Because the second permanent secretary and the Immigration Minister meet him very, very regularly.
Tim Loughton
So you are not delighted to meet him.
Sir Matthew Rycroft
I would be delighted to meet him. I meet lots of people. I just think that the clarity of the ownership of the—
Tim Loughton
But you wouldn’t be delighted to meet him in your formal role as the top civil servant in the Home Office, because you have not responded to his requests for a meeting in all the time he has been in office, and now his contract is not being renewed.
Sir Matthew Rycroft
I believe in clarity of accountability and clarity of relationship management. In this case, we put a very clear mechanism in place after a lot of thought about who was best to hold that relationship. It actually went up from the director general for migration, which is the situation that I inherited, to the second permanent secretary.
Tim Loughton
Which Minister would be most relevant to meeting David Neal?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
The Immigration Minister.
Tim Loughton
Right. The previous Home Secretary met David Neal, but you did not.
Sir Matthew Rycroft
Yes.
Tim Loughton
So it is nothing to do with lines of accountability, really, is it? You have just chosen not to. Who is responsible for making the final decision on whether the inspector’s contract should be renewed?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
The Home Secretary.
Tim Loughton
Subject to advice from who?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
Home Office officials.
Tim Loughton
Such as?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
In this case, the team who lead on the relationship with ICIBI in the migration and borders part of the Home Office.
Tim Loughton
Did you see that advice?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
Yes.
Tim Loughton
Did you have any input into that advice?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
I oversaw it, and I am responsible for it in the way that I am responsible for all advice in the Home Office.
Tim Loughton
Does that include having input into it?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
I don’t recall changing the advice, and if I did, I will write to you.
Tim Loughton
That was not the question. Did you have any input into the advice, whether the final advice changed or not?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
I don’t think so.
Tim Loughton
You had no input into the advice given by officials to the Home Secretary about the renewal of the contract of the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration—yes or no?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
I am responsible for all advice from all officials in the Home Office to all Ministers in the Home Office. I oversee that in ways that vary depending on what the issue is. If by “input” you mean, did I change it, I am pretty sure I didn’t.
Tim Loughton
I don’t mean change. I am asking about input.
Sir Matthew Rycroft
If by “input” you mean, did I oversee it, then I did oversee it. I am responsible for it, but I did not actively edit it.
Tim Loughton
So why was the contract of the chief inspector, unusually, not renewed?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
Because that is what the then Home Secretary decided.
Tim Loughton
On what basis?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
You will have to ask her.
Tim Loughton
You have seen the advice. On what basis was the advice to her, which she presumably then agreed with, that the contract should not be renewed? Because you saw that advice, had input into that advice, although had not necessarily changed that advice. What advice was it?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
Your question makes an assumption about what that advice was. I do not think I am at liberty to say what that advice was. I think that is private between Home Office officials and the Home Secretary. The outcome of that decision making was the Home Secretary’s decision, which I referred to.
Tim Loughton
What are the most likely reasons that a chief inspector’s contract would not be renewed, given that usually in the past it has been?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
I don’t think there is any presumption of a particular number of terms for a job like that.
Tim Loughton
Right. On what basis, if the candidate were willing, would it not most likely be renewed? What are the theoretical scenarios?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
It is up to the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary received advice from Home Office officials, and I oversaw the system of that. It was up to her to take a decision, and she took that decision.
Tim Loughton
Is there a possibility that the advice to the Home Secretary was to renew the contract of David Neal?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
It is possible. I am not going to say what that was; I don’t think I should.
Tim Loughton
Why has it taken so long to publish the reports produced by David Neal taken? How many are still outstanding?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
Simon might be able to answer how many are still outstanding. As to why they take so long, the individual publication of an individual response is a matter for Ministers, so Ministers decide the timing of those responses. Some of them, I accept, are detailed and complicated and deserve very thorough analysis and response. They get that, and sometimes the Home Office is not the speediest Department at responding to things like that. I take responsibility for any delays there. I do think there have also been occasions when Ministers have chosen not to make a publication at a particular time.
Tim Loughton
So it is entirely down to Ministers delaying, not the fact that the officials have not made the necessary checks and reports, in order to publish those reports and then be able to make a response to them.
Sir Matthew Rycroft
I think I said the exact opposite to that.
Tim Loughton
So, it is down to your officials.
Sir Matthew Rycroft
I think I said that sometimes it is down to officials, and sometimes it is down to Ministers.
Tim Loughton
Why is it that this chief inspector’s reports seem to be sat on disproportionately for long periods of time? I believe there are currently 10 reports outstanding that have yet to be published. That is “yet to be published”, not yet for the Government to respond to the reports. Why is it so frequent in this case? Mr Ridley, do you know?
Simon Ridley
Just to confirm that you are correct that there are 10 reports waiting to be published. They are at different points, as Matthew has said. Some are with business areas, some have been put to Ministers, and we are obviously putting those back to the new Home Secretary. I do not know what the comparison is with past years. It is certainly the case that it is taking too long to publish some of these reports, and we need to get a number of them published much quicker, and I hope that is what we will do.
Tim Loughton
Sir Matthew, when we had both the Home Secretary—with you alongside her, I think—and the Immigration Minister as witnesses, the Committee requested that we respond positively to an invitation by the chief inspector, which was actually instigated by the Committee, to go on joint inspections with him, for the mutual benefit of the inspector, to see how the Committee works, and the Committee, to see how the inspector works, given that he is a key witness in front of us. Neither the Home Secretary nor the Immigration Minister could raise any objections to that being a good idea, yet subsequently it was vetoed. Why?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
Ministers decided that, in order to preserve the independence of the inspectorate, it would not be right for this Committee to join an inspection. However, as I hope you know, you all are very welcome to visit any part of the Home Office estate or team, and I am very glad that many of you do so regularly.
Tim Loughton
Why does it compromise the independence of the inspector if he has got some MPs looking at his work at an inspection?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
That was the decision that Ministers took.
Tim Loughton
Do you agree with that?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
I don’t think my view is relevant.
Tim Loughton
Your view is entirely relevant. You are the chief civil servant running the Home Office. Ministers expressed to us in front of the Committee that they did not have a problem. Then, magically, they did have a problem. That would suggest that they had taken different advice from officials for whom you are responsible; therefore, your view on this is entirely relevant.
Sir Matthew Rycroft
A bit like the previous line of questioning, you are assuming that the advice was one particular way.
Tim Loughton
I’m not assuming anything. I would just like to know your opinion on it.
Sir Matthew Rycroft
It’s a decision for Ministers, and Ministers are quite rightly in our system accountable to Parliament for the decisions they take on policy issues.
Tim Loughton
Why is it that every question this Committee asks where there is a difficulty in providing an answer, it is the responsibility of Ministers rather than something in which you have a role? Even if you think it was ultimately the responsibility of Ministers here, it would be nice to know your view. You are a very experienced civil servant. In your experience, whether it is with this Committee or other Committees, why would the independence of an inspector be compromised by being accompanied on a day trip to inspect a facility in which the inspector and this Committee has a close direct interest? I just don’t understand what the problem is.
Sir Matthew Rycroft
I’m a civil servant and my job is to support the Government, support Ministers, give them the best possible advice and be held to account by this Committee and the Public Accounts Committee on the aspects of the running of the Home Office for which I am directly accountable to you. Broadly speaking, that is the money and the way that money is spent. Ministers in our system, as you know, are accountable to Parliament for the policy, strategy and decisions.
Tim Loughton
And for taking the rap when civil servants do not want to answer the questions.
Sir Matthew Rycroft
I respect that division of labour. I do have views on these things, but I do not think it is appropriate for me as an individual to set all those views out.
Tim Loughton
You are not here as an individual; you are here as the chief civil servant in the Home Office. I will end on the asylum legacy target, which the Government now appear to be confident they will achieve. Is that a realistic estimate now by Ministers that that legacy will be completed by 13 December or at some stage in December?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
By the end of December. Actually, we have always been confident of that because we knew that we were on track to recruit the additional caseworkers, which we have now done, with 2,500 by 1 September, and to triple the productivity of caseworkers.
Tim Loughton
So it is entirely down to the extra resource that has been brought in to deal with the backlog now.
Sir Matthew Rycroft
It is the combination of the extra resource and the increased productivity of the existing resource.
Tim Loughton
Nothing to do with the number of claims that have been withdrawn?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
It’s a combination of those two things. As those caseworkers have gone through the cases, some of them have been withdrawn.
Tim Loughton
You say it’s a combination of these two things, but you have now listed three things.
Sir Matthew Rycroft
The extra caseworkers and the productivity.
Tim Loughton
So the withdrawal rate plays no part in now being on target to meet the legacy cases.
Sir Matthew Rycroft
No, I think the withdrawal rate plays an important part. It is a consequence of that—
Tim Loughton
So it is three factors. You said it was two factors, but it is, in fact, three factors, isn’t it?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
The number of caseworkers times the average number of decisions per week gets you the number of decisions per week in total. So, in that sense, it’s about two factors. Within that, there are certain policy changes and some operational changes, including the one that you referred to, which lead to improvements in the rate.
Tim Loughton
Okay. Is it correct that 17,316 claims were withdrawn between September 2022 and September 2023?
Simon Ridley
If you say so; I do not have the exact number. It is absolutely the case as we go through much higher numbers of decisions that you would expect a number of withdrawals. We have clear thresholds for when we withdraw, which is when people do not engage with the process. If individuals do not show for an interview twice or if individuals do not respond to requests for questionnaires twice, their claim is withdrawn. However, there are outcomes. Over the course of the year, we have addressed far more claims and made far more decisions. Some have been granted, some have been refused and some have been withdrawn.
Tim Loughton
I understand that, Mr Ridley. Is it just fortuitous that in that period, there has been a 307% increase in the number of withdrawals?
Simon Ridley
I don’t think it is fortuitous. What we have done this year is set out to address all the claims in the legacy backlog by the end of the year, as the Government set out. We have followed our policy and process in all those cases. In dealing with a lot of older cases there have been some people who will have absconded before we get to this point. Withdrawals come about, as I say, when people do not show for interviews or have not returned questionnaires. Because we are dealing with a lot of very old cases, that is one plausible reason why it has gone up. I do not think that is fortuitous. We have gone through each case in the backlog—
Tim Loughton
But the reason for those withdrawals has changed, hasn’t it? Some 5% of those withdrawals were classed as “non-substantiated”, which is a specific term, but 95% were classed as “other”, against 54% being classed as “other” the year before. There has been a huge rise in the withdrawals classed as “other”, which can apply to a whole series of reasons instigated by the Home Office. Is it not strange that, conveniently, when faced with a very stiff target, there has been a threefold increase for undetermined reasons in people magically not going forward with their claims? And where are those people?
Simon Ridley
In most cases, I do not know where those people are. As I say—
Tim Loughton
So we have no record of that 307% increase or the 17,316 claims withdrawn in the last year. You have not got a clue where those people now are.
Simon Ridley
These are people who have made a claim and who we have sought to invite to interviews and sent out questionnaires to who have not responded. At the point at which they are not engaging with the system, that leads to a decision, and we have withdrawn their claim.
Tim Loughton
So you tick them off the list, but they have not gone home.
Simon Ridley
I don’t know.
Tim Loughton
You don’t know. So you have no idea where those 17,316 people are.
Simon Ridley
I don’t think we know where all those people are, no.
Tim Loughton
You have no idea.
Chair
Why do you not have the figures for withdrawals? Why are you not able to confirm what Tim Loughton just said?
Simon Ridley
I just don‘t have the precise number in front of me.
Tim Loughton
It is quite an important figure to have had, isn’t it?
Chair
Yes. I find this amazing. We were going to talk to you, obviously, about the backlog, because it is a key priority of the Prime Minister. He has said that by the end of December we will have cleared the legacy backlog. I would have thought that you would know chapter and verse on all the figures in relation to the backlog and what happened to all the claims and withdrawals—ones that had been accepted and ones that had been turned down. Do you not have any of that information?
Simon Ridley
We have all that information. Indeed, we are managing all that information and our teams are managing it daily.
Chair
So you do have the figures, then.
Simon Ridley
We’ve got the figures, obviously, because we are managing our way through the backlog. We published a load of the numbers and the latest position at the end of September last week.
Chair
But we are asking you questions today about the figures, and you say that you do not know what the figures are.
Simon Ridley
I just don’t have them on the table right in front of me at this moment.
Chair
Why don’t you? It is actually really disrespectful to this Committee that you do not come prepared for questions. You have officials sitting behind you, so I assume that they might be able to pass you a note to confirm the figures. Can they? I am assuming so. That is what happens in the House of Commons; if a Minister is in difficulty, the officials in the Box send a note to the Minister. I can see that we are not getting very far today, are we?
Simon Fell
Thank you for joining us, gentlemen. Carrying on with the asylum backlog and hotel use, the Immigration Minister was clear at the Dispatch Box that he intends to end the use of hotels. The latest quarterly immigration stats to September this year show that despite small boat crossings falling, there is still a record high number of asylum seekers in hotels; I think it is 56,000 people. Can you talk us through your plans to end hotel use?
Simon Ridley
Yes, certainly. As you say, there are just over 56,000 people in hotels at the moment. What we have done, as Ministers set out, is to commit to closing the first 50 hotels by the end of January. We are working very closely with our providers and with local authorities in those areas to close those hotels. We are doing that by essentially consolidating the accommodation estate. As we make decisions on the asylum backlog and grant asylum, people are leaving. We are then essentially moving people around the estate. So, we are doing a number of things, the first of which is growing dispersed accommodation—housing, essentially—in communities. The second is maximising the number of beds that we can utilise across the estate, both in dispersed accommodation and hotel accommodation. As people leave, that creates space; we have to consolidate people into a smaller number of hotels and, once we get to the point that we have an empty hotel, having announced 50 ahead of time, we are then able to end the contract and therefore to close that hotel. The 50 that were announced were the first 50; as the Minister said, it is our intention to close hotels and to end the use of hotels over time. We are working to develop what the next tranche of hotels will be; when that is prepared, we will move on to the next set of hotels.
Simon Fell
That is helpful, thank you. My understanding is that nearly 14,000 people have arrived in the UK since the Illegal Migration Act got Royal Assent. There have been zero inadmissible decisions since that time. How does that marry up with what you have just said? How will we decline the use of hotels when we actually have more people arriving and are not sending them anywhere else?
Simon Ridley
We are able to reduce the number of hotels for two reasons. The first is that a combination of arrivals going down and decisions going up means that we are reducing the demand on our accommodation estate—at the moment, overall, we are seeing fewer people arriving on the estate than are leaving—and the second is that we are increasing both the number of beds that are available in our estate outside hotels and consolidating beds within hotels, so that we can use fewer hotels. Over time, that will enable us to close more hotels. Clearly, over the medium term, the forecasts of arrivals get less certain, depending on a number of things that we have talked about already this morning. We will therefore need to grow the number of beds that are available outside hotels as well, because there will still be some level of demand on our estate.
Simon Fell
You said over the medium term. What are your projections? When can we expect to see no more hotels being used?
Simon Ridley
We are still working through our projections for the coming year and beyond, because there are large numbers of uncertainties in those, as we already touched on. Small boat arrivals are down a third this year. That is for a number of reasons, and it is difficult to attach causality with certainty; there is the work that we have done with Albania and the work that we are continuing to do with the French and how much more we can get from that. There are also the current uncertainties around Rwanda and the deterrent that comes from that. It is difficult to make projections for next year. We will have a range. Once we have got that, we will match our—
Simon Fell
Can you share what that range will be?
Simon Ridley
In this year just gone, we had a central, best and worst case. We do not have a range for next year that is complete. We are working through those projections at the moment.
Simon Fell
Can you share that with the Committee when it is done?