Oral evidence: Migration and Asylum, HC 408

Oral evidence, 13 December 2023.

Witnesses

Dan Hobbs, Tom Pursglove and Michael Tomlinson.

Chair

Good afternoon and welcome to the Home Affairs Select Committee. This inquiry today is on the work of the Minister for Illegal Migration and the Minister for Legal Migration. The aims for this session today are to hear about the latest Channel crossing developments, more than one year on from the publication of the Home Affairs Select Committee report into Channel crossings, including the Department’s approach to reducing Channel crossings; to examine developments in the Government’s Rwanda policy, including the recently agreed Rwanda-UK treaty and the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill; and to understand what the Home Office’s migration strategy is, including its approach to illegal migration, the impact of the Illegal Migration Act on support to victims of human trafficking and how it intends to address legal migration. We have a lot to get through today. Can I first of all welcome our witnesses? Ministers, I wonder whether you would like to introduce yourselves to the Committee.

Michael Tomlinson

Dame Diana, thank you so much for extending the invitation to us. I was in the Chamber this time last week when you were grilling the Home Secretary, saying, “Is the Minister going to turn up to our Committee next week?” I was sitting next to him. Little did I think that I would be the Minister sitting in front of you, but here I am. My name is Michael Tomlinson, and it is my privilege to be a Minister in the Home Office.

Tom Pursglove

I cannot really add an awful lot more to what my fellow ministerial colleague has said. I am Tom Pursglove, the Minister for Legal Migration and the Border.

Chair

We are very pleased to see you again, because you have been in front of this Committee before. It is very nice to have you back.

Tom Pursglove

I have indeed. I have been away for a while, but I am back.

Dan Hobbs

Good afternoon. My name is Dan Hobbs. I am the director general for migration and borders in the Home Office.

Chair

Before we start, I just want to extend my personal condolences and those of the whole Committee, given the news yesterday around the asylum seeker who was on the Bibby Stockholm who sadly died. Clearly, we do not have very much more information about that, but all our thoughts and prayers are with the friends and family of that individual. I think I speak for the whole Committee in saying that. We would like to start today by reflecting on the session that we had with the Permanent Secretary of the Home Office and the interim Second Permanent Secretary on 29 November. In that session, the Committee found it quite difficult to get information out of the officials about the questions we were legitimately asking. Since then, we have had a letter from the Permanent Secretary, which came yesterday. We would quite like to start by having a look at that letter and dealing with some of the points that are contained in that letter. I want to start with the legacy asylum backlog. We know this is the anniversary of the Prime Minister, on 13 December last year, saying that he was going to pledge that the legacy backlog would be cleared by the end of this year. It is very good to see that progress has been made on that. In the letter from the Permanent Secretary, he says that on 30 November there were 18,366 cases remaining for decision. That was out of the 92,000 that the legacy backlog started with. That is huge progress. That is very important and good to see. I do not know whether you have this letter in front of you.

Michael Tomlinson

I do. Which page are you referring to?

Chair

We are on the third page of the letter. It says “legacy asylum backlog” halfway down the page.

Michael Tomlinson

This is paragraphs 6 and 7.

Chair

Yes. I just want to ask you this question. Looking at that table, we have grants of protection, grants of other leave, refused applications and withdrawals. I want to take you to 2023 quarter 3, where it has grants of protection at 18,432, grants of other leave at 170, refused at 4,743 and withdrawn at 4,268. Tim Loughton is going to ask some questions about the withdrawals. I just want to concentrate for the moment on the acceptances. If you add up that whole column, you get to 27,613 cases that were being dealt with in that quarter, which is an impressive number. Some 18,000 were granted. On my calculation, that is a 67% acceptance rate. I want to take you then to quarter 2. If you look at the figures, they are much smaller. If you extrapolate from those figures, the acceptance rate there is only 38%. I just wondered whether you might want to comment about how that rate has gone from 38% to 67%. The Committee was told by David Neal, who is the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, that the cases that were left in the legacy backlog would be the most complicated and complex to deal with. He was very sceptical about whether the pledge that the Prime Minister had made would be reached. What is going on?

Michael Tomlinson

May I start in this way? You will have seen the portfolio breakdown between the two of us. I am going to turn to Tom in a second to look at the detail of this. Whether it is in my portfolio and Tom wants to add something or vice versa, then so be it. All I would like to say is that I hope that you have received a breakdown—I know the Committee requested it—as to which Minister was going to look at which area. I see you nodding. Thank you so much. That means you have received that. I am going to invite Tom to answer that directly, but if there is anything in particular that I want to come in on as well, perhaps we can deal with it in that way.

Chair

We are very relaxed on this Committee. What we really want to do is to get information and data. Whichever one of you is able to answer the questions we are happy with.

Tom Pursglove

The Prime Minister was very clear that it was a priority to deal with the legacy asylum backlog. I am very pleased with the progress that has been made, and I am hugely appreciative to the team, expertly led by Abi Tierney, who has just left the Home Office but has done a fantastic job on the transformation side in this area. There is a lot of learning that has gone on that will stand us in good stead as we move to deal with the asylum backlog more generally. In the last 12 months, we have seen a fall of 80% in that legacy asylum backlog. I am confident that all claims that can be decided will be decided within the timeframes that the Prime Minister said would happen in that legacy asylum backlog.

Chair

You are using very careful language there. You said “all claims that can be decided”. You are not saying that we will see the pledge to clear the backlog actually happening.

Tom Pursglove

, I am confident we will fulfil the pledge to deal with all the cases that we are able to deal with within that legacy asylum backlog. You touched on the grant rate. We have seen that rate change over the years. In 2019, the grant rate was 52%; in 2020, it was 46%; in 2021, it was 72%; in 2022, it was 76%. I do expect that the refusal rate will drop in the last quarter of this year and as we move into the flow in the new year.

Chair

Can you answer my specific question, though, Minister?

Tom Pursglove

I am. As Mr Neal said, it is fair to say that a lot of the legacy backlog has been quite complex, challenging and difficult cases. You will appreciate the fact that, with the length of time that passes, often those cases get more complex by the nature of people laying down roots and all their circumstances developing. In terms of the commitment that we made, I believe that we will fulfil it and that we will also see these grant rates coming down.

Chair

Why is it 67% for quarter 3 when it was 38% in quarter 2?

Tom Pursglove

What is crucial is that we make the right decisions on cases. There is a case-by-case consideration of all the different circumstances at play. Those are factors that are relevant.

Chair

You do not know. You do not really know why it has gone from 38% to 67%.

Tom Pursglove

You will appreciate that I am familiarising myself with this aspect of the portfolio. These are priority areas. As I say, I genuinely believe that the grant rate will continue to fall as we move forward with this work. We take appropriate decisions on a case-by-case basis. I am not sure whether, operationally, Mr Hobbs might be able to add a little bit more.

Dan Hobbs

Thank you, Minister. Statistically, there is a big difference in the output in that quarter. It will also be due to the fact that, as you will be aware, we introduced streamlined asylum processing, particularly for high-grant nationalities, where we are using a different and more efficient process.

Chair

Was that in quarter 3? I thought you had done that before.

Dan Hobbs

We had started that earlier, but it came together with the productivity uptake and the increase in staffing. That meant the numbers came through later than here. As the Minister said, the grant rate in quarter 3 is not substantially outwith the annual rate. In fact, it is below the last two years of annual grant rate. It is the culmination of a range of activities that have happened in the operation around streamlined processing and how we deal with those high-grant nationalities. Some of those nationalities will have extremely high grant rates, such as Afghanistan.

Chair

Would they have been spread throughout the legacy backlog that you were dealing with in each of these quarters? I understand that you are saying you have more caseworkers dealing with the cases, but Afghans and other people from high acceptance groups must have been spread evenly. You cannot say they are all—

Dan Hobbs

The streamlined processing, which was deliberately targeted on that, will have been borne out in quarter 2 and quarter 3. I cannot remember the exact date when we introduced it, but it was earlier this year. That will have flowed through into those quarterly statistics.

Chair

You are saying that in quarter 4 we are going to see a reduction in the acceptance rate. Is that what you are saying?

Tom Pursglove

I believe you should expect to see a drop in the grant rate in that final quarter, yes.

Chair

That is the explanation.

Tim Loughton

Welcome, Ministers. Congratulations, Mr Tomlinson, on your promotion. Commiserations, Mr Pursglove, at finding yourself back in the Home Office. Two weeks ago we had what might be described as not exactly a data-rich session with the Permanent Secretary and Simon Ridley. It turns out that those Home Office statistics, which we challenged them on, in many cases have turned out to be rather full of errors. Specifically on the question of withdrawals, we want to understand how the figures from the outstanding backlog have been reducing at a faster rate. On the face of it, that is encouraging. The figure we challenged Sir Matthew on was the 17,316 claims designated by the Home Office in the year ending September 2023 as having been withdrawn. After some unsatisfactory exchanges, Simon Ridley eventually said, “No, we do not know where those 17,316 are”, which was rather worrying. The letter that the Permanent Secretary has just written says, “A proportion of withdrawals have been miscategorised as ‘other withdrawals’”. In that final quarter, I pointed out that 95% of those withdrawals were categorised as “other”. “Other withdrawals” are asylum claims withdrawn explicitly, for example if the applicant signs a form to withdraw his or her application or because the applicant leaves the country prior to a decision. How have those figures been miscategorised? In most cases, “other withdrawals” require a physical act of filling in a form to say they no longer wish to have their application considered. Mr Tomlinson, as you are in charge of illegal migration, can you perhaps explain how there was such an error in the categorisation?

Tom Pursglove

I am going to hand straight over to the Minister who is actually dealing with withdrawals.

Tim Loughton

The Permanent Secretary did a lot of that as well.

Michael Tomlinson

Let us hope we do not see too much of that. I am sure you will keep us rigorously to the point.

Tom Pursglove

To set this in some context, in the year ending September 2023 there was 17,316 withdrawn asylum applications, which was more than four times the number in the previous year, when there were 4,260. Albanian nationals accounted for 54% of withdrawals in the year ending September 2023. Relative to other nationalities applying for asylum, Albanians had a high rate of withdrawing their asylum applications. This is not surprising. We consistently tend to see Albanians using the asylum route, having arrived via small boat. That is convenient in the circumstances, but they do not particularly want to be within the asylum system. That accounts for a very significant chunk of the figure. Invariably, those cases flow into the immigration enforcement space, which Minister Tomlinson leads on, and things like mandatory reporting to try to monitor that situation, with detention as a possibility in the circumstances to facilitate removal. There are other reasons that account for why claims are withdrawn, such as somebody no longer being in this country and so withdrawing their claim or somebody qualifying under another route, which resolves their circumstances and therefore means they no longer want to proceed with an asylum application.

Tim Loughton

I understand that, all of which should be known to the Home Office. Presumably, therefore, the Home Office will have a record of the status of that person and where they are, in particular whether they remain in the United Kingdom without permission to do so. By my calculations, you have just said that 54% of that 17,316 figure was down to Albanians. The Government have had some success with returning Albanians. Presumably, you have kept a record of which Albanians have been returned and obliged to leave the UK. Why did Mr Ridley say he does not know where those 17,316 people are?

Tom Pursglove

That would be one for Mr Tomlinson.

Michael Tomlinson

Mr Loughton, they are not detained. You either detain people and say, “They are therefore in place A”, or they are not detained. As Tom quite rightly said, some are detained to facilitate removal, but that is for a very specific period of time. For those who are not detained, you know their address, but you do not know precisely where they are, in as much as they are free to move around.

Tim Loughton

Except they are not, are they? What you do know is that they no longer have a live application for the right to remain in the United Kingdom and therefore, under our migration laws, will be obliged to leave the country. Whether they are detained because they may be seen as a greater risk or not detained, the Government surely will want to keep a record of where that person may be and particularly whether that person is still in the UK or not. When that person leaves the UK, hopefully Border Force, doing its job, will be able to effectively tick them off the list. What the Committee wanted to know, which Mr Ridley was not able to answer, is this. There are those who have not been ticked off the list because they are accounted for because they have left. The others are therefore in the UK illegally. Why do we not know roughly where they are? What enforcement action is being taken to make sure, after a certain space of time, they have left as they should have done?

Michael Tomlinson

All of those are fair questions and you are absolutely right, but, if you are not detained, it would be wrong of me to say that I can pinpoint to a precise square metre where each individual is.

Tim Loughton

That is not what I am asking.

Michael Tomlinson

I do not think that is what you are asking. I am grateful for that clarification. You are right: there are processes that are gone through and there are records that are kept. I cannot give you a precise answer now.

Tim Loughton

What does the form look like? On the basis that a large number of those people have physically signed a form that has physically come into the receipt of somebody in the Home Office, does that form say on it, “You have to leave the country within X weeks or else”, or that they have to report in every so often until they have left the country? Surely you are not just allowing somebody to sign a form saying, “I no longer wish to continue with my application”, and then there is no oversight of them at all. All of them would do that because they are then completely off the radar. How are you checking that they have withdrawn their application and left the country because that is what they need to do?

Michael Tomlinson

From an operational point of view, Mr Hobbs can address that point, but I understand why you are asking the question.

Dan Hobbs

Thank you, Minister. Mr Loughton, there are two things here. The Permanent Secretary’s letter addresses the point that some of them were miscategorised. Some of those withdrawals will be because people have not complied with our processes and therefore have not substantiated their claims. You will be aware that when people arrive we screen them and accommodate them. It is not uncommon that certain nationalities are then not compliant with the asylum process. There are two categories within “withdrawn”, which is drawn out in the letter.

Tim Loughton

We know all of that. All of that came out in our session with the Permanent Secretary. What I have just said is that, by the Home Office’s own figures, in the last quarter as many as 95% came under that “other” category. Roughly what amount of that 95% has been miscategorised, do you estimate?

Dan Hobbs

I do not have an estimate for those that are miscategorised, but there will be a proportion, as we have gone through the legacy flow, that will have not complied and not responded, when we have invited them to interview, reached out to them via the streamlined asylum process or contacted their last known legal representative. Many of the people will have legal representatives.

Tim Loughton

That classifies them as a non-substantiated claim.

Dan Hobbs

That is correct.

Tim Loughton

That means they have absented themselves from the system. They are more difficult to keep tracks on. Those who are not more difficult to keep tracks on are the “other” category. As I have said, the two main reasons for that are that they have signed a form and physically given it in, so they have had to appear out of the ether, or they have left the country and that box is ticked. How many, roughly, of that 95% have been miscategorised? You should know.

Dan Hobbs

I do not have that figure in front of me, but there is a commitment to write to the Committee setting out the classifications in that category. It covers those who we know have left the country, those who we know have other forms of leave and those who may no longer be in touch with us because, very sadly, they may have passed away. That can happen while people are in the process. There is a commitment to write to the Committee with a breakdown of that number.

Tim Loughton

Mr Hobbs, I know that somebody who has died is not going to sign a form and submit it to the Home Office.

Dan Hobbs

No, sorry. They may have done but subsequently are no longer with us. That is why we are going through the process of data cleansing so we can give accurate answers in your breakdown.

Tim Loughton

Those people will be easier to trace because presumably there will be a death certificate.

Dan Hobbs

We are going through the process of clarifying that data to give those answers to that breakdown.

Tim Loughton

All the people you have defined within that “other” category are the easiest people to locate. Two weeks ago, we asked, “What is on the form? What do they sign up to?” It would be quite nice for us to see the form. We asked for that and we have not been sent one of those forms. I want to know what the follow-up procedure is once they have signed the form to make sure they have left the country in a reasonable amount of time.

Dan Hobbs

Where individuals do not have leave, if the individual does not have any other form of leave or right to be in the UK, they will be informed of that at the point at which they withdraw their claim, which is the same as if someone has their claim refused, although obviously there is an appeal right with a refusal. If they withdraw their claim and do not have any other basis to remain in the UK, they will be informed that they have no basis and should leave. They may also be subject to immigration, bail and reporting requirements, which they do through our immigration enforcement centres. They are required to regularly report. All those individuals will also flow into immigration enforcement, which will action those cases. That action will be dependent on the risk matrix. They work on various different criteria, such as the harm that an individual may cause, particularly if they are a former foreign national offender, or any vulnerabilities with that individual. It is also dependent on their nationality, the ability to return those individuals to that country and the documentation process. There will be a whole range of criteria about how those are then actioned.

Tim Loughton

I have one final question. Mr Ridley did not know where any of those 17,316 people were. For how many, roughly, do you think you know where they are?

Dan Hobbs

I do not have that data. As I said, we are in the process of clarifying that data and writing to the Committee to set out what we do know about that 17,000 number that you have asked about.

Marco Longhi

I do not understand how you can come to this Committee for a second time, having been asked the question two weeks ago, and still not have the information. I am sorry.

Chair

Yes, I agree with you on that. I am going to go back to another issue on this letter. Let us hope we can get a bit more information. It is paragraph 2, which is about the number of people who have been refused asylum and sent back to their country. Specifically, we were interested in the small boats issue and the number of people who had been returned. On the second page of the letter is a table going back to 2020. It gives us the total figures of the people who have been returned who have come across in small boats since 2020. I have calculated that the number of people who have arrived in the United Kingdom by small boats is 109,917. What this is telling us is that the total number of people who have been removed since 2020 is 408. On my calculation—I hope this is correct—0.004% of the people who arrived in small boats have been returned. Would either of the Ministers like to comment on that?

Michael Tomlinson

No, that is not a number I recognise. I can see the table and the chart that you have on page 2, just above paragraph 3.

Chair

Yes, it is at the top of the chart. It says that since 2020 there have been 408 returns of non-Albanian and non-foreign national offender small boat arrivals. That is from the Permanent Secretary of the Home Office. I appreciate that you have only been in post for a very short period of time, Minister, but this is the most senior official in the Home Office telling the Committee that 408 people have been returned.

Michael Tomlinson

Dame Diana, may I tackle it this way? I do not have a substantive answer on that specific point. I recognise that this Committee has asked some very serious and detailed questions of the data. I take on board entirely Mr Longhi’s very reasonable point that these questions were asked two weeks ago. The letter that contains this detail is dated yesterday’s date, 12 December. Respectfully, I have always dealt constructively with colleagues, I hope, and with the previous Select Committees that I have been grilled by, notably the Justice Select Committee, the House of Lords Constitution Committee, etc. I want to continue that constructive relationship.

Chair

We do as well.

Michael Tomlinson

Just let me finish. Thank you. That is very encouraging. If there are specific questions on the data that you want to put to witnesses in the detail that you are perfectly reasonably asking for, it might be helpful to set those questions out in slightly more detail and I will endeavour to get you those answers. Can I commit to one point? Mr Loughton raised a very important point about a form that was requested by the Committee and a commitment that was given to the Committee to provide that form. I will undertake to ensure that the Committee has that.

Chair

There are a couple of points that I want to make at this stage. First of all, we had the Permanent Secretary and the interim Second Permanent Secretary in front of us. It was a disaster. I would have expected that the Permanent Secretary and the interim Second Permanent Secretary would have written to me straight away with all the information that I and colleagues had requested at that meeting. There was silence. Therefore, on 7 December I wrote requesting all the information that had been put to the Permanent Secretary and his colleague at the meeting. We finally got something last night, this letter in front of us, with this information on it. It is a concern that I have to write to get information out of the Permanent Secretary, first of all. Secondly, this Committee always wants to have a constructive relationship with Ministers, but we expect Ministers to come before this Committee properly briefed. You have a whole array of civil servants sitting behind you. They all have the ability to pass you a note, as happens in the Commons and as I saw happen yesterday. I appreciate that you are very new in post. Equally, it is getting to the point where the Home Office is being incredibly disrespectful in the way it is treating Members of Parliament and not providing information in a timely way.

Michael Tomlinson

Dame Diana, on that very point, I accept your point that you want to be constructive with the ministerial team and the Home Office, and may I reciprocate? That is how I conduct myself, and that is how I intend to conduct myself in the future in this post. I hope you saw a little bit of that on display yesterday as well. Respectfully, you are asking detailed and specific points. I understand your point about the letter of 7 December. I saw that. I understand and share your frustration in terms of the response to that. Please do forgive me for dwelling on the point. I want to be constructive and I want to engage with this Committee constructively.

Chair

You have said that.

Michael Tomlinson

I want to be as helpful as I can to you and your colleagues.

Chair

I am very glad to hear that, Minister, but asking questions about how many people have been returned who have arrived in small boats is not the kind of thing that I would expect to have to give notice of to the Home Office. If you come before a Committee, we are going to ask you those questions. We all know this is a really topical issue. We are all concerned about it. We all want to know. My Clerks give a full explanation of what the Committee is likely to want to discuss when we have Ministers in front of us. You do not need to have the exact specific questions that we are going to ask because you are grown-ups, you are politicians, you have been around and you know what the issues are.

Lee Anderson

I would like to welcome the Ministers to their new roles. I am not going to hold back, Ministers. Welcome, Mr Hobbs. We sat here a couple of weeks back with the Permanent Secretary and his assistant. The Chair is quite right. They were evasive and almost slippery in their replies to this Committee. They were disrespectful to this Committee, in that they came with no figures. It is a little bit disrespectful, Mr Hobbs, because you must have watched that meeting or looked at some of it. You saw the questions that were asked. You are being asked the same questions now, and you still do not have the answers. I think that is disrespectful. I will go to the Ministers first. Mr Rycroft and Mr Ridley, to my knowledge, did not answer one simple question throughout the whole session. Ministers, have they been spoken to by the ministerial team? If they have, what conversations have you had? Would it be a good idea to put this pair into special measures?

Michael Tomlinson

Mr Anderson, may I address that? I know you are not going to hold back. You do not, and nor should you because you are entitled to ask your questions in your own way, and it is a unique and very effective style, if I may say so. In response to the questions that you asked, there was a follow-up letter and there was a response that was received last night. Yes, I saw there was further a joint Committee, which Dame Diana referred to, in the Chamber of the House of Commons yesterday as well. There was a further follow-up to that. Yes, I have seen that, and I have seen the response. You heard my response to Dame Diana. The way I have always conducted myself is to be professional, to be prepared for meetings and colleagues and to be respectful to colleagues, but I do caveat that. From time to time, there will be very specific questions that are asked, whether of officials or Ministers, and I am not going to sit here and say I have an answer when I do not, respectfully, Mr Anderson, whether to you or anyone else. I agree with you. If you asked questions two weeks ago to which you have not had a satisfactory answer, I will make sure that does not happen again.

Lee Anderson

If I were in the Home Office—thank goodness I am not—working on this, there would be a weekly or monthly total of returns so that the whole Department knew exactly what was going on. Would that be a good idea?

Michael Tomlinson

My instinctive reaction is yes.

Lee Anderson

I want to talk now about the huge progress that has been made with the legacy backlog. We have seen the huge progress and that is great news, but what does it achieve? We see high numbers, 60% or 70%, of claims being accepted. They are being moved out of hotels, which is great. They are moved out into the community to settle in social housing or whatever. It does not seem to achieve anything other than speed up the migrants’ applications for asylum.

Tom Pursglove

The Prime Minister has been very clear about the commitments we have made and the need for us to deliver on them. One of them was to deal with the legacy backlog. It is fair to say that from across Parliament there have been very strong views expressed about the need to do that, including from members of this Committee. We are making the progress that we want to make in relation to it. Ending our reliance on the accommodation estate, for example, is the right thing to do. I recall from my previous time in the Department just how strongly colleagues felt about the need to vacate hotels within their communities. We are getting on with this, and we will deliver the departure from the first 50 hotels by the end of January. I want to then get on and make additional announcements about further progress in relation to that in the months ahead. That is something people will welcome. The fact is that we are spending £8 million a day in the asylum system presently. That is not a sustainable situation. Where we can provide clarity to people about their specific cases, that is what we should do. That is what the getting down of the legacy backlog seeks to do. All of that has to be seen in the wider context of what is being achieved by Government. The fact that we have seen a 30% reduction in those arriving by small boats is significant and important. It is what you want to see. The fact that we have seen a 90% reduction in arrivals from Albania in this year, again, is testament to the efforts that have been made by successive Ministers in these roles. They have made some important changes. You cannot take the areas of the business that you have touched on in isolation. You have to look at this issue in the round. We are trying to move this forward in a pragmatic way that addresses these issues and fundamentally gets the costs down because they are not sustainable.

Lee Anderson

It was me who asked the question when Mr Rycroft and Mr Ridley were here about how many small boat arrivals whose claims had been refused had been returned. Bearing in mind what the Chair has just said previously about 100,000 people having arrived here in the last two or three years, if we look at the chart that Mr Ridley has supplied, we see that non-Albanian returns are at 420 since 2020. That is out of an arrival figure of over 100,000. Is that an acceptable figure? Like the Chair says, that is probably nought-point-nought-something percent of arrivals.

Michael Tomlinson

I want to see those figures as high as possible. I am reading the same chart. As far as I am concerned, the numbers need to be significantly higher than they are.

Lee Anderson

I have one final question, please. If we had ID cards in this country, would it help to tackle illegal migration?

Michael Tomlinson

As a principle, I am anxious about that. My instinctive reaction is one of caution. We have had these debates in Parliament over many decades. There are many strongly held views on both sides of the argument. We are not traditionally a “papers, please” type of society. You will understand my instinctive caution in response to that specific suggestion.

Tom Pursglove

It is also just worth adding that, in terms of the facilitation of people into this country, we are dealing with complex criminality. Small boat arrivals, by the very nature of things, would not have an ID card amongst their possessions. In fact, what we often see is quite the opposite, with documents being dumped over the side of vessels in order to make life more difficult for the authorities on this side in terms of being able to manage that issue.

Chair

In terms of the constructive relationship between this Committee and the Home Office, Minister Pursglove, we have just been sent, at 14.36, a letter from you, Minister, about the annual review of the financial allowances sent to asylum seekers and failed asylum seekers supported under sections 95 and 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. It would have been much more helpful to have had that in advance of the session. Sending it when we have already started is really not helping build that constructive relationship.

Tom Pursglove

Dame Diana, colleagues generally would accept that I am always constructive and I always seek to do my very best to aid the House. I would like to consider myself to be a parliamentarian. You will appreciate that this has been a very busy week for Ministers. We are grappling with various challenges. We are trying to be as available to the House as possible. We are speaking to a lot of colleagues. I take your feedback on board. I will always try to provide timely correspondence to the Committee to try to aid your deliberations. Most members of this Committee would vouch for the fact that is the way I go about my business.

Chair

Thank you for that undertaking. Thus far, we have found it very difficult to have information sent to us in a timely fashion. If that is the way we are going to go forward, that is very helpful and useful to know.

Marco Longhi

Knowing the two Ministers as I do, particularly Mr Tomlinson, who used to be my whip, I know they are people with whom I will certainly want to work with in a very constructive way because I know their personalities and their own personal integrity. Nonetheless, they fill the roles they fill. In doing the job they do, they have to be supported by civil servants and officers, for want of a better word, who support them in the job they do, as does the Prime Minister. On 7 December, the Prime Minister made it known that this year we have returned 5,000 people who are Albanians and cut those arrivals by 90%. I would like to know where he gets that information from and how confident he can be in this information. The Permanent Secretary has put forward a document to this Committee that says, if you look at column 3, total Albanian returns since 2020 are 762. Unless I am reading this data incorrectly, something is wrong somewhere, is it not?

Michael Tomlinson

Mr Longhi, may I just pick up the first point you make? I agree with you. I am bound to say that in my first three full parliamentary days in this role I have been briefed exceptionally well and I have been supported by the officials, not just those who sit behind me but a wider team. I agree with you. I agree with the thrust of your point. I can see the column you are looking to. The number I have in front of me is 5,100 since 13 December 2022. That is the number that I have in front of me.

Marco Longhi

Were you briefed on this paper, then?

Dan Hobbs

If I may, I can explain the difference. This relates to just those Albanians who will have come in in small boats. We will have returned Albanians who will have either come through other routes into the UK irregularly or clandestinely, Albanians who are here who came lawfully but then overstayed or Albanians who are foreign national offenders. When the Prime Minister is talking about the increase of removals to Albania, he is talking about the total number of people that we have returned to Albania under our agreement, which is 5,100.

Marco Longhi

I am going to stop you there. I am sorry. I have to disagree because on the Government website in front of me there is a quote from the Prime Minister that says, “Last year, a third of all those arriving in small boats were Albanian. This year, we have returned 5,000 people and cut those arrivals by 90%. Albanian arrivals have far more recourse to the courts than anyone under this new legislation. That is why I am so confident that this Bill will work”. I do not understand your explanation.

Dan Hobbs

They are different things. The Prime Minister’s statement is correct. We have returned more than 5,000 people to Albania. The stats on those arriving in small boats have also been cut by 90%, but they are different subsets of data.

Marco Longhi

Of the 5,000 people, what proportion arrived in small boats?

Dan Hobbs

It will be 762, but that is since 2020. Some of the Albanian small boat arrivals may have arrived in a different period because, if people have asylum claims or other claims, their removal and their arrival may not be in the same reporting period. From January to June 2023, there were 531 Albanian small boat returns.

Marco Longhi

The Prime Minister says that this year we have returned 5,000 people.

Dan Hobbs

Yes, we have returned 5,000 people. The chart in the Permanent Secretary’s letter only relates to those who have arrived on small boats. The Prime Minister’s is all Albanian removals who have no lawful right to be in the United Kingdom.

Marco Longhi

The Prime Minister is mixing information.

Dan Hobbs

The Prime Minister was setting out the data, which is correct. We have done more than 5,000 removals to Albania this year. The numbers of small boat crossings from Albanians have been cut by 90%.

Michael Tomlinson

Mr Longhi, let me just say that I agree and understand the thrust of your question, but the overall number I have is 5,100. That is as of 30 November this year. Between 13 December 2022 and 30 November 2023, it is 5,100.

Lee Anderson

I just have one more question. I want to emphasise what Marco said, Ministers. That 5,100, therefore, is not just made up of small boat arrivals. That could be Albanians who have been in this country for donkey’s years.

Michael Tomlinson

Yes, or who have arrived by different means.

Chair

They may have been in prison. There is a large number who have been—

Michael Tomlinson

Foreign national offenders, yes.

Chair

We would know where they are. We can transport them easily.

Michael Tomlinson

Yes.

Chair

Just to go back to what the Permanent Secretary says, excluding the Albanians, there have only been 408 returns since 2020 of small boat arrivals.

Michael Tomlinson

Of the small boat arrivals, yes.

Chair

That was the focus of Lee Anderson’s question.

Michael Tomlinson

Yes, I agree. That is exactly what the chart says.

Chair

I am going to come to James Daly in one moment, but I just wanted to refer to question 4 in the letter, which is at the bottom of the second page. This is about Bibby Stockholm. We ask for the costings around Bibby Stockholm, the per-person cost. In this, it says that the value of the vessel accommodation services portion is £22,450,772. That is the first time we have heard a figure for, I am assuming, the cost of the Bibby Stockholm and any other barges that the Government are contracting with.

Tom Pursglove

To be clear, that is the only barge with which there is a contractual arrangement.

Chair

We are spending £22 million on the Bibby Stockholm. How long is that for? What is the period of that contract?

Tom Pursglove

I do not have the length of contract to hand, but we have committed to providing details in the new year around those cost estimates, which we will work up. We will provide that information through the prism and with the context that you are seeking.

Chair

The thing that strikes me as very strange is that in the letter it says, “The value for money assessment is currently being updated to give the latest per-person per-night cost and we will provide details in the new year”. I am just flabbergasted that a value for money assessment was not carried out at the time the contract was let. Do you not understand why the Committee is concerned about that?

Tom Pursglove

The word “updated” is in that statement. You will appreciate why it is important that we revise those value for money estimates as time passes: for the simple reason that we want to be responsive to needs. If we need, for example, to put additional provision in place, if the number of people on board changes or if various other variables come into play, we need to be able to adapt those figures to make sure that what we are dealing with and when we are engaging with committees like yours, Parliament and society more generally, we are talking in an accurate sense. You will understand why that is quite important.

Chair

No, absolutely. It says here, “This contract was varied in April 2023 to incorporate vessel accommodation services on the Bibby Stockholm barge at Portland Port”. I would have thought that the value for money assessment would have been done at the point when you were varying the original contract. Are you saying it was not?

Tom Pursglove

I would assume—again, I have only been in this role since Thursday last week—that work such as that was carried out at the time. Again, I would make the point that this letter from the Permanent Secretary is talking about updating those costing figures and forecasts.

Chair

He could not tell us what the value for money was at the time. They must have done an assessment about the cost of a hotel compared to putting someone on to the Bibby Stockholm. There must have been some assessment. Mr Hobbs, perhaps you might be able to help us.

Tom Pursglove

This is undoubtedly a more cost-effective way of providing accommodation, than would be the case in the large accommodation sites at Wethersfield and, as we propose, Scampton.

Chair

How do we know?

Tom Pursglove

You are asking for figures. We have committed to do this work to come back to the Committee with those revised costings, taking full account of the most up-to-date circumstances.

Chair

I understand, Minister.

Tom Pursglove

It is important that we engage with you in an accurate sense, and this will allow us to do that.

Chair

What I am saying to you is that I am surprised you did not do the value for money assessment at the time the Bibby Stockholm came online. That is what I am saying to you. You may well be updating it now, if you are increasing the number of people who will be on the Bibby Stockholm. I understand that. At the time of the contract being amended, I would have thought you would be able to give me the figure to say, “The value for money was X”. You do not have it. I do not know whether Mr Hobbs can help us.

Dan Hobbs

I do not have that figure.

Chair

No, Mr Hobbs does not have it either.

James Daly

Mr Tomlinson, can I just ask you to confirm for the record what rule 39 interim measures are?

Michael Tomlinson

Yes. Rule 39 interim measures are rulings from a Strasbourg court where, pending a final hearing in Strasbourg, a judgment is made by a court as to whether an action should or should not happen there. It is an interim measure before you get to a final hearing.

James Daly

It is essentially injuncting a course of action while the legal proceedings are going on.

Michael Tomlinson

That is correct, before you get to the final hearing. That is exactly right.

James Daly

Does the legislation that was voted on and before Parliament yesterday incorporate section 55 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023? That section is not yet in force, but the Act effectively provides that a Minister can choose whether or not to comply with interim measures in respect to the removal of an individual under that Act.

Michael Tomlinson

Yes, it does. It refers specifically to section 55 of that Act in clause 5(4)(a) of the Bill.

James Daly

In straightforward terms, does that mean that, even if an individual takes a legal course of action, Ministers, if they so choose, can simply ignore the injunction, if it is felt appropriate and the right thing to do, and send that person to Rwanda or whatever the course of action is?

Michael Tomlinson

Both the Illegal Migration Act and in the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill, exactly as you say, make it abundantly clear that it is for a Minister of the Crown and only for a Minister of the Crown to make a decision as to whether the United Kingdom is going to comply with an interim measure. Yes, you are absolutely right.

James Daly

Would you agree that that position, which is a clear statutory position that you have set out, is necessary because at this moment in time the Government’s internal legal advice and the general legal position is that interim measures are binding on state parties and that failing to comply with them amounts to a violation of the Convention?

Michael Tomlinson

You are referring to the Government’s legal position statement, not legal advice. From my role as a former law officer, you will know I do not discuss official legal advice. I do discuss and will discuss the Government’s legal position statement, which was published the day before yesterday, to which you are referring. Yes, as a country, we abide by our international obligations. That is absolutely right. The “serious and irreversible harm” test, which is set out in clause 4 of the legislation, is language that mirrors the Strasbourg court test in terms of whether an interim order is going to be made or not. My personal view is that this test is a very high one and it is going to have to be pretty rigorously gone through. We will comply with our international obligations. Of course we will. Another way of saying it is that it sets out the orthodox constitutional position. It is Governments that make treaties. It is Parliament that makes laws for our country.

James Daly

I do not want to turn this into two lawyers talking to each other about legal concepts.

Michael Tomlinson

I love lawyers talking to each other.

Tim Loughton

That can be expensive.

James Daly

I just want to be 100% clear in respect of this. If the current Rwanda legislation were to pass through Parliament, forgetting the legal test, the higher court, tribunal or anything else like that, is it the Government’s position that a Government Minister can ignore rule 39 interim measures, if such an order is made by a European Court?

Michael Tomlinson

The Prime Minister has been very clear, crystal clear, that he will do whatever it takes to ensure that the flights take off. That is the first thing. The second thing is that the legislation, as you say, makes it abundantly clear that it will not be for a domestic court; it will be for a Minister of the Crown to decide what happens in those eventualities. In my role as a law officer, I have been dealing with cases on a daily and sometimes hourly basis. As you know from your legal training and your legal background, they are dealt with on the evidence; they are dealt with on the facts; and they are dealt with with rigorous scrutiny. You would expect nothing less from Government Ministers.

James Daly

Can I just press you, in my final few questions, on the concern that was raised in the House yesterday about what I will call vexatious litigation? This is about the fact there are spurious claims that are made to justify appeals, judicial reviews and all these types of things. In terms of answering that point, will the Rwanda legislation that is going through Parliament be held up for months, if not years, by these types of claims? What is your answer to that?

Michael Tomlinson

It is an incredibly important question. We will go through the legislation line by line when we get to Committee stage. You will have seen clause 4; you will have seen the way it has been drafted. One would have to produce compelling evidence. It is not just on a mere assertion. It is not just on a spurious claim. There will have to be compelling evidence relating to a person’s individual circumstances. I cannot make a bold assertion. I cannot just say that something is the case. I will have to produce evidence. Not only will I have to produce evidence, but it will have to be compelling evidence. If that is to be a suspensive claim, i.e. it is to stop me getting on the plane to Rwanda, I will then have to fulfil the test that I face a real, imminent and foreseeable risk of serious and irreversible harm. Those are very high tests indeed.

James Daly

I just have a few final points. Would you be able to confirm to us—I do not know whether you can confirm now or later—the timeframe for applications to the Upper Tribunal, the immigration judge who is the first judicial point of contact? How long would an applicant have to make their application?

Michael Tomlinson

Under the Illegal Migration Act, the aim is that within 28 days the vast majority of cases will have been gone through.

James Daly

In terms of the 28 days, there are two options. You might be successful. If what you have said happens, what is the next legal step for those people? Is it the case that within 28 days, their asylum status will be granted?

Michael Tomlinson

It depends on what happens. If it is described as manifestly unfounded or completely unfounded, if that is the decision that is made, that is the decision that is made. Are you asking about what the next process is?

James Daly

This is an important point that has been raised numerous times.

Michael Tomlinson

Yes, it is.

James Daly

Is it the case that, in terms of litigation, you foresee that within 28 days most cases will be dealt with by the Upper Tribunal one way or the other?

Michael Tomlinson

That is right, correct. That will be absolutely concluded. Mr Daly, what I am not telling you is that there will not be claims. Of course, we anticipate that there will be claims.

James Daly

I understand that. I am just talking about the timeframe for the claims.

Michael Tomlinson

It will be 28 days under the Illegal Migration Act.

James Daly

I was reading a case called Oceana, which is a High Court case.

Michael Tomlinson

I know the case.

James Daly

The great delay in these proceedings is often judicial review proceedings. Oceana seems to be suggesting that it is very difficult for judicial review proceeding to proceed for cases that have been turned down. Am I right in respect of that?

Michael Tomlinson

You are absolutely right. Oceana is a very important case. It is a case where, the Committee will be very interested to know, the court agreed and followed the very clear wording of the statute and said that, where the statute is set out clearly, even if it is an ouster clause, a notwithstanding clause, the court will and must follow it. That is the constitutional position. That is the parliamentary position. That is why the Prime Minister has been so clear that this is the toughest piece of legislation that has ever been brought before Parliament.

James Daly

We talked about the 28-day period for legal proceedings to be brought. If somebody has come off a small boat across the Channel, where would they be held or where would they be living during that 28-day period?

Michael Tomlinson

That depends. It depends on the circumstances. When the scheme is up and running, the aim and the intention is for the detention and removal to be as swift as possible.

James Daly

It is the aim of the legislation for detention—that is the word you have used—to run over that 28-day period. They will be in some form of Home Office accommodation during the period of those 28 days.

Michael Tomlinson

At the moment, the Illegal Migration Act is not in force. When the scheme is up and running, when the Act is in force, the aim is for there to be swift detention and swift removal.

Marco Longhi

On the point of allowing individual claims and compelling evidence being provided, I understand why the point is being made that people need to be allowed to make a claim. I get that. The point that I struggle with is, once there is a successful claim, having gone through all of the difficult hoops you have described, what is to stop some of these clever lawyers from finding a way of replicating this many thousands of times and thus clogging up the system, the courts and the whole removal process?

Michael Tomlinson

Mr Longhi, I understand your question and I share your concern. The legislation does two things to stop that. First, it makes sure there is a systemic statement that Rwanda is safe. To Mr Daly’s point, the courts will have to follow the judgment of Parliament, if indeed it is the judgment of Parliament, that Rwanda will not refoule, which is the technical term, and people will not be removed to an unsafe third country. Rwanda is deemed to be a safe country. No claim can be brought under that ground whatsoever. Only under your individual personal circumstances will you then be able to bring your claims. To your point, it would be a spurious claim if someone were to assert that they had exactly the same individual characteristics and exactly the same features as another claimant. To try to copy it, which is the thrust of your question, there would need to be compelling evidence. You cannot just assert that something is the case. Compelling evidence will need to be brought.

Marco Longhi

I want to try to come back on this because I am trying to understand it. In a sense, this is what a lot of asylum seekers do right now. They have charities over in Calais that brief them on exactly what to say and what documents to fill in. Why is there not a judgment now that a lot of these are in fact spurious claims? Why are we not doing what other countries that do seem to think that it is spurious are doing? Countries such as Germany and others have zero acceptance of Albanians into their country, or as near 0% as it can be, but we have seen 67% in quarter 3. That is the bit I do not understand.

Michael Tomlinson

When an application is made, there is a process and a determination. As part of that determination, if the evidence simply is not there, that is when the case, for example, could be deemed to be manifestly unfounded. That is part of the process. You cannot just assert it, Mr Longhi. There will have to be evidence that will be brought as well, and not just any old evidence. It will have to be compelling evidence.

Dan Hobbs

To your point about Germany, our Albanian grant rate for men is something like 2% under asylum for Albanians.

Chair

What is it for women?

Dan Hobbs

I cannot recall that, off the top of my head. It is higher, but there are far fewer women. I think the grant rate for men from Albania was published in our most recent statistics.

Alison Thewliss

I will start by asking how many of the children that went missing from Home Office’s hotel accommodation are still missing?

Tom Pursglove

There are no children in hotel accommodation now. There are no UASCs in hotels. Six of the seven hotels that we had for these purposes have been closed. We have one that is available on standby in order to ensure that there is provision available in the eventuality of exceptional circumstances. What I can say in terms of the figures is that there are 132 children still missing at this stage.

Alison Thewliss

So 132 out of the 154 that went missing are still missing.

Dan Hobbs

Just to clarify that figure, 103 of those are now adults against their claimed age.

Alison Thewliss

You do not know where they are.

Dan Hobbs

So 103 of the 132 that are now adults are still missing and 29 of the under-18s are still missing.

Alison Thewliss

What are you doing to find them?

Dan Hobbs

We are working intensively with the local authority. We of course comply with the statutory framework that kicks in when issues like this arise. Of course, we engage with the police, under the protocol, to make sure that we try to identify and find any missing young person as quickly as possible, as you would expect.

Alison Thewliss

You are not doing a very good job of it if 132 out of 154 are still missing. That has been since June.

Tom Pursglove

There is that missing persons protocol.

Alison Thewliss

You do not care, do you?

Tom Pursglove

That is a pretty outrageous suggestion. To suggest that Members of this House and that Government Ministers do not care about that issue is a pretty shocking claim.

Alison Thewliss

If it was one of my children who had gone missing, I would want to know where they are more than six months down the line. You still do not know where 132 of them are. On a visit recently, we heard from an official in Belgium that, when a child goes missing from their accommodation, they put in a huge amount of effort to find those children. Why are you not doing the same?

Tom Pursglove

I really do resent any suggestion that any Minister or any official does not care about any child—

Chair

Minister, could I just stop you there? When we raised this with the Permanent Secretary two weeks ago, he did not even have the figures. We are grateful you have the figures today, but it did not inspire confidence in us two weeks ago that he could not even tell us how many children were missing.

Tom Pursglove

You will appreciate there was a very clear claim there that I do not care about this. I just want the record to be very clear that I do care enormously about this.

Chair

We are very pleased to hear that.

Tom Pursglove

Any responsible Minister or official in Government would, as would any Member of Parliament equally. As I say, we continue to work very closely with the local authority and the police to try to identify children where they are missing, invoking those protocols. There is strenuous work going on as well, particularly working with the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the NCA to set out national guidance to try to aid that process as well, because we obviously want there to be best practice available to try to assist in that endeavour. We will continue to do everything within our power to aid that work, as a Home Office, to identify and find children who go missing. I have provided the figures to the Committee, and you can be absolutely assured that this will continue to be a big priority for me in this role.

Alison Thewliss

When will you have found all 132 of them?

Tom Pursglove

I think you will appreciate why I cannot give you a definitive answer to that question, because there are variables involved. Those will depend very much on the circumstances of the individuals in question. What I can absolutely say to you again—I repeat this point—is that, as a Department, we will do everything that we can, working with those agencies to identify and find those missing children.

Alison Thewliss

The Children’s Commissioner, Rachel de Souza, has expressed concerns about how much the Home Office actually cares about these children that are in accommodation. I am going to read out her quote, Mr Tomlinson, if you would like to listen. She said, “Of the 5,298 children in the data return, the Home Office only provided vulnerability notes for 38% of the children”. Do you believe that only 38% of children who have fled war zones and have come to these shores alone are actually vulnerable?

Tom Pursglove

In previous roles, I have always had a very good and constructive working relationship with the Children’s Commissioner, and I intend for that to be the case in this role. I will want to see the Children's Commissioner. I will want to talk about this issue. I will want to hear her knowledge, expertise and feedback about what more she thinks that we can do to try to better the protections and the safeguards that we have in place to address this issue. It is worth reflecting on the fact that 88.6% of those children who are still missing are Albanian.

Alison Thewliss

Does that mean they matter less? Why is that relevant?

Tom Pursglove

I am trying to unpack this issue. I am really trying to explain the context to it as well and the work that we are doing to try to address this. You will appreciate that that very often links into serious criminality, and that is often the explanation for why these circumstances arise. Evil criminal gangs who are responsible for the trade across the Channel often have a footprint in this way, trying to take advantage of vulnerable children. That is why I want to work, with the Children's Commissioner and others, to try to further the work that we do and to try to improve performance in this regard. Candidly, I will very happily work constructively with any Member of this House in that endeavour. That includes you, and it includes any member of this Committee who has an interest in that issue. I do not think there can be anything more serious than trying to make sure that children are properly safeguarded and kept safe. It is so serious.

Alison Thewliss

There is a risk of those children, as you say, being trafficked into circumstances that make them even more vulnerable than they already are. The evidence received in the recent report that this Committee produced suggested very strongly that the Home Office was no longer treating trafficking as a priority. The policy was there, but in implementation, it was not there. Why is that?

Tom Pursglove

My understanding is that this is a priority for officials as it is for Government Ministers. I consider this issue to be of utmost seriousness.

Alison Thewliss

People arriving under the Illegal Migration Act will no longer be assessed for trafficking. How will you find the vulnerability if you are not going to assess their claims?

Tom Pursglove

I will perhaps bring Mr Hobbs in for an operational view on this. We will always screen individuals properly, identify vulnerabilities, and ensure that those issues are properly addressed and catered for.

Dan Hobbs

The Minister is right. Just to clarify, under the Illegal Migration Act, what it did provide for is that, if someone was found to have reasonable grounds, under the public order exemption they could be precluded from the 30‑day rest and recovery period; it did not prevent the assessment of people for trafficking and that their ongoing needs could be met in Rwanda. The process under the Illegal Migration Act is the public order exemption.

Alison Thewliss

People working in this sector have told us—they have told me, because some of them are based in my constituency—that, due to the provisions in the Illegal Migration Act and also legislation this week on Rwanda, people are going to be far less likely to engage with anybody in officialdom because they believe they will be sent to Rwanda. Do you accept that that is the risk of your policy?

Michael Tomlinson

In terms of minors, no, because unaccompanied children are not part of the Rwanda scheme, full stop.

Alison Thewliss

They are part of the treaty, because there are provisions in there that say that, if children end up in Rwanda in some way or another, they will be dealt with in X, Y or Z way.

Michael Tomlinson

No. With respect, that is not the case for unaccompanied children.

Alison Thewliss

That is not what the treaty says.

Michael Tomlinson

It is expressly what the treaty says. Just give me one moment.

Alison Thewliss

The treaty says that they will not be sent, and then it has a whole load of provisions for what happens if they are found there. That suggests there will be some age-disputed cases there.

Tom Pursglove

Just drawing on a previous time in a Home Office role, I had always been very clear that unaccompanied asylum-seeking children would not be included in the partnership with Rwanda.

Michael Tomlinson

It is article 3, clause 4.

Alison Thewliss

Why is there a provision? We can go into this another time. I do not want to fall down a particular rabbit hole with this, but there are provisions in there for what happens if children end up in Rwanda by accident. Can I say that I have a huge amount of Home Office case work in my constituency? I have currently 130 unresolved cases, which I might want to take up with either or both of you at some point.

Tom Pursglove

You are very welcome to work through those issues with me and the team.

Alison Thewliss

A lot of the case work that I see is low-level incompetence in the Home Office as a Department, such as biometric residence permits with the wrong name, the wrong date of birth or the wrong place of birth, rendering those documents invalid. What pressure are you putting on the service to ensure that things are issued correctly?

Tom Pursglove

Accuracy is always something that I feel very strongly about. That has been an area of focus for me in a number of ministerial roles. I could not be clearer that we need to get more decisions right first time. The work that has gone on over the course of the last 12 months in relation to trying to clear the legacy backlog has been very helpful in this regard. Teams have identified a lot of new ways of working that have been successful in achieving that objective. The fact that we have seen that three-fold increase in asylum decision productivity is something that I am sure you would welcome, and colleagues on the Committee would welcome too. I am really confident that we can deal with the backlog effectively in the future, informed by that learning that has gone on. I am absolutely very willing to engage with colleagues about individual cases that are of concern to them. Where there is particular learning that officials can take away and that we can reflect in our processes, I would want us to do that, but there is absolutely no advantage to anybody, candidly, of not getting decisions right at the first available opportunity.

Alison Thewliss

I have a further example of the low-level incompetence. I had a constituent who was granted her decision in March and only just received her paperwork this week. How is that acceptable in any way?

Tom Pursglove

You will appreciate that I am not going to casework an individual case in a Select Committee, but I would always want paperwork to be issued in an expeditious way, following on from a decision being made. If you provide me with the specifics of that case, I will very gladly dig into that and provide you with an answer as to what those specific circumstances might be.

Alison Thewliss

In your new role, that is going to be a critical thing, because my experience, through the cases that I deal with, is this low‑level incompetence is absolutely rife in your Department. In terms of the other schemes, I can see from the list that you are responsible for the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme as well. Is the statistic that, for every 17 Afghans coming in on a small boat, only one of them came in on a Government scheme?

Tom Pursglove

Minister Mercer’s statement this afternoon is welcome, and we remain committed to fulfilling our commitments under the ACRS. When it comes to small boat arrivals, I could not be clearer that nobody needs to get in a small boat and pay a criminal gang to put their life at risk in order to be in safety. All of those individuals are coming from what is a fundamentally safe country and have often travelled through several safe countries in order to embark on those journeys. What we cannot do, of course, is host 40 million Afghans in this country, which is the total population, but we will continue to work constructively to provide as much sanctuary as we possibly can. We have continued to work in a cross‑Government way on this issue with the Ministry of Defence and with other Departments in Government, including the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. We want to play our part in responding to that situation in Afghanistan, particularly prioritising those who have worked with the UK Government. You will appreciate why that is important, and I hope you will recognise the steps forwards that we have taken today to facilitate the next steps in undertaking that work.

Alison Thewliss

I was in for the statement today, and it did not give me or my constituents any particular reassurance at all. To give an example from yesterday, I have a constituent whose family fled Afghanistan; they are in Pakistan. They have no paperwork because they had to run for their lives. What is their safe and legal route to the UK?

Tom Pursglove

Nobody should be coming via a small boat to the United Kingdom.

Alison Thewliss

What is their safe and legal route to the UK?

Tom Pursglove

That is most certainly not a safe and legal route. In no sense is it a safe way to get to the United Kingdom.

Alison Thewliss

What is the route?

Tom Pursglove

My point would be that people should look to avail themselves, where they qualify, through the routes that we have, including the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme.

Alison Thewliss

They cannot ask the Taliban for a passport. What is their safe and legal route to reunite with family in Glasgow?

Tom Pursglove

We continue to work in partnership with the UNHCR around the UK resettlement scheme, and we will continue to support around this important endeavour, however we can, as a UK Government, building on the steps that we have already taken to try to facilitate getting Afghans to this country and helping them to safety. That speaks to the important work that has been carried out by this Government, which has seen over 500,000 people from around the world, coming from conflict areas, here in the United Kingdom and provided sanctuary in recent years, which is a significant number. That is something that all of us are immensely proud of.

Alison Thewliss

There is no safe and legal route for this family, is there? That is what you are telling me.

Tom Pursglove

One of the things that we are currently exploring is what more we can do around the UK resettlement scheme to try to support greater opportunities. That needs to be done in a joined-up way. We want to ensure that people who come to the UK seeking sanctuary are properly supported, properly integrated, have proper opportunity and have proper accommodation. Candidly, that work is made more difficult by the nature of the small boat crossings that we have seen and the enormous resource that goes into dealing with that issue. I can absolutely give the undertaking that in this role I will look at what more we can do through the UK resettlement scheme. Of course, we also have the consultation ongoing around the cap that was legislated for through the recent Act, which again is about trying to consider what we can do to provide properly supported opportunities to people coming from conflict zones in various parts of the world.

Alison Thewliss

Finally, on a different matter, when can Kate Eves expect a response to the Brook House inquiry?

Tom Pursglove

I will take that request away and provide an update to the Committee.

Alison Thewliss

We have been waiting since September.

Tim Loughton

Ministers, on “Any Questions?” on Radio 4 last week, the Minister for common sense, Esther McVey, said that the Government is not increasing safe routes. She was wrong, was she not?

Tom Pursglove

I well recall us engaging on these matters when I held a previous role and was taking through the Nationality and Borders Act, and you have regularly pressed us to do more around safe and legal routes. As you will recognise, we have the consultation ongoing around the cap. We have extended that consultation until 9 January. That will include the UK resettlement scheme. It will include community sponsorship, where there are people willing and keen to come forward and provide placements, and we would be very willing to match people to those, as well as the latest stages of the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme, pathways 2 and 3. That cap is amendable. It will come into force, I suspect, in 2025, and I would make the point that, within the parameters of all the challenges that we are grappling with, we have a proud record as a country of providing sanctuary to people. We want to build on that. We want to continue to see those opportunities provided. We want to see people come here through safe and legal routes. We do not want people putting their lives in the hands of—

Tim Loughton

We know that. In the interests of the time, was she wrong or was she right?

Tom Pursglove

It is fair to say that, as a Government, we are very willing to facilitate greater opportunity through safe and legal routes in a way that I have described, about looking at what more we can do to increase the amount of—

Tim Loughton

We are increasing safe and legal routes.

Tom Pursglove

I am not going to pre-empt what the outcome of that consultation might be, because we want to do this in partnership.

Tim Loughton

You do not have to pre-empt the outcome of the consultation, which has not finished yet. You just have to confirm what was in the legislation, in the Illegal Migration Bill, which committed the Government to producing additional safe and legal routes, to launch a consultation and to lay a report to Parliament by 20 January. You have now extended the consultation with local authorities, which I gather has only been with local authorities.

Tom Pursglove

That consultation has been extended with local authorities.

Tim Loughton

You are not consulting with anybody else at the moment, are you?

Tom Pursglove

We want to ascertain what capacity is available out there and what needs could be met in individual communities.

Tim Loughton

I understand that.

Dan Hobbs

The consultation is with local authorities only. They can work with various suppliers within their local authority to manage their response.

Tim Loughton

I understand that.

Tom Pursglove

In letter and in spirit, that agenda is being taken forward. That is what I would say to you.

Tim Loughton

In which case, your colleague was wrong, because she has caused some confusion.

Tom Pursglove

You are asking me to comment on an interview that I admittedly have not heard.

Tim Loughton

I will quote you chapter and verse. You only have to say whether she was right or not, on the basis you are now the Minister responsible for what is in the Bill, which obliges the Government to produce a report by 20 January on how you are extending safe and legal routes by the end of this year.

Tom Pursglove

It is fair to say that we are taking forward that work in the way that I believe you would like.

Tim Loughton

I am glad you are because you are obliged to under the legislation that was passed by Parliament in July of this year, and specifically the amendment that I led on, which the Government accepted.

Tom Pursglove

As I said, in letter and in spirit.

Tim Loughton

That is good. From that, I will extrapolate that Esther McVey was wrong. The consultation is an important one; it is to do with capacity, which is why local authorities are key to that, but it is also a consultation about the make-up, formula and character of those safe and legal routes for physically getting someone from danger zone 1 to the UK. It is not just about the capacity to house them here. The consultation has not involved refugee and other NGO organisations that are dealing with the potential beneficiaries of those safe and legal routes in other parts of the country. The understanding, certainly in my extensive conversations with the Minister, as well as what was said in the debate, was that this consultation would take in a wide range of organisations, so that there would be a much better-informed report on how those safe and legal routes would actually take place. Why has that not happened?

Tom Pursglove

I was not privy to those conversations that you had had.

Tim Loughton

They were on the Floor of the House in some cases.

Tom Pursglove

We will want to consider carefully what capacity local areas can offer, how they believe that they can meet the needs that exist, and how they would like to go about providing support. I am sure that, as part of that, we will want to layer on all of that expertise and all of that insight to make sure that, in delivering on those commitments, we can do that in the most joined-up and effective way to overcome the sorts of issues that I know will be of concern to you.

Tim Loughton

Are you still committed to 20 January for laying your report, because you now have 11 days from the extended consultation date until your obligation under that legislation to lay a report before Parliament on the safe and legal routes. You are not going to miss that deadline, are you?

Tom Pursglove

My understanding is that that is on the cap.

Tim Loughton

No, it is a consultation—

Tom Pursglove

Of course, in responding to the wider opportunity around establishing safe and legal routes, we will need to ponder what is possible and make announcements appropriately.

Tim Loughton

The consultation is to inform the report, which you are obliged to lay before Parliament by 20 January, on any existing and new safe routes that you are planning. That is what the report needs to say by 20 January. It will be produced by 20 January, will it not?

Tom Pursglove

It is statutory.

Tim Loughton

That is right. You are on course to fulfil your statutory obligations to turn that report into actual safe and legal routes, which have to be in force in 2024, as promised on numerous occasions by your predecessors.

Tom Pursglove

That advice has not come across my desk as yet, but I am sure that it will.

Tim Loughton

Since the Royal Assent for the Illegal Migration Act, 13,599 people have arrived who will be covered, therefore, by this legislation. You have another potential backlog stacking up on the original backlog, which you are still working through. Is it likely that you will again change the retrospective cut-off date in order not to have an additional backlog, which you then have to sort out? Mr Hobbs can help here, perhaps.

Dan Hobbs

Mr Loughton, I think you are referring to the retrospective nature of the Illegal Migration Act, which goes back to the rules applying to the date of Royal Assent.

Tim Loughton

That is correct.

Dan Hobbs

To support the Minister, it is not something that we have discussed with them yet in terms of the approach as to when the full Act is operationalised. That will be a decision for Ministers. The current rules, as set out in the legislation, are that the duty is retrospective to the date of Royal Assent.

Tim Loughton

Those 13,599 people are subject to the terms of the Illegal Migration Act, as it stands. When the Illegal Migration Act came in, the Government abandoned the previous retrospective applications from last year, did they not?

Dan Hobbs

Yes. They changed the date from the date of introduction to the date of Royal Assent.

Tim Loughton

That is correct. Is it likely to do that again so as to avoid having a further backlog, starting with the 13,599 so far, do you think?

Dan Hobbs

That is a decision that Ministers will take.

Chair

We have to suspend the session at this point. Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. On resuming—

Tim Loughton

I wanted to finish off what I had started before the Division. Those 13,599—it may be slightly more now—who have arrived since Royal Assent should therefore be subject to the terms of the Illegal Migration Act. They have committed an offence and should be therefore subject to some form of detention, restriction or deportation. What has happened to them? They are rather in limbo, are they not?

Michael Tomlinson

That is right. The Act has not yet come into force, as we have discussed.

Tim Loughton

It has.

Michael Tomlinson

In relation to the duty, it has not. We are talking about the IMA.

Tim Loughton

In the Illegal Migration Act, the date set was Royal Assent, at which point those people would be committing an offence. We have had four or five months, which has resulted in 13,599 people who are in limbo, because they have not been detained, deported or restricted in some other way, presumably.

Michael Tomlinson

That is right. It is also right to say, as I stated, that not all of that Act is yet in force. That is right to say.

Tim Loughton

For those people it is, because they have committed an offence by coming here.

Michael Tomlinson

No, in terms of the duty under the Act, that has not yet come into force. Mr Hobbs may be able to help me out in terms of other provisions that are enforced, but I am thinking first and foremost in relation to the duty to remove.

Dan Hobbs

Mr Loughton, are you referring to the illegal arrival offence that was in the Nationality and Borders Act, not the Illegal Migration Act?

Michael Tomlinson

That Act came into force on 28 June 2022.

Dan Hobbs

The criminal penalties related to illegal arrival were in the Nationality and Borders Act, if I remember correctly, and changing the people smuggling. In terms of the duty to remove, that is not yet in force.

Michael Tomlinson

It is in relation to your point as to the retrospective effect, if you like, of the legislation.

Tim Loughton

You are going to have a group of people in limbo when it does, therefore, come into force, if you are saying it did not, going back to July of this year. What is going to happen to that group of people who will form, as I referred to earlier, a further backlog, effectively.

Michael Tomlinson

Mr Loughton, as you have seen in relation to the backlog, that is something that the Government have taken very seriously. My colleague, Minister Pursglove, has set out some of the progress that has been made, and I have been grateful to the Committee for acknowledging that progress. You are right that we will then need to continue and clear the other cases that are in the system. That is absolutely right.

Tim Loughton

They are a different status of cases, are they not?

Michael Tomlinson

That is absolutely correct.

Tim Loughton

Can I just come back to one other point, which is in your remit, Minister Pursglove? I gather that the Home Secretary earlier today did an interview to try to clarify the lack of clarity over the new visa regulations and the salary thresholds. I am certainly getting a number of worried constituents who are in the UK already and are asking me if they will therefore have to leave if they do not have the new £38,000 threshold or whatever it is. Am I right—and is the Home Secretary right—that he has said that people already in the UK who are applying for visas will not have to meet the higher salary thresholds going forward?

Tom Pursglove

As the Home Secretary has said, we are approaching this issue through the prism of these measures not being applied retrospectively, but we will come forward with further detail around those announcements as soon as we are able.

Tim Loughton

He seems to have stated quite clearly in an interview earlier today that they will not apply for people already here. It is not, “We are looking at it”, or “through various prisms”, but “They will not apply”. Clearly, people are worried that they may have to up sticks and move quite quickly, potentially, because it takes some time. Is the Home Secretary right or not?

Tom Pursglove

These are important measures that we are taking forward to try to reduce net migration. We believe that, taken with the students package earlier in the year, this will reduce net migration by around 300,000.

Tim Loughton

I do not want the theory behind it; I just want the detail of when it applies.

Tom Pursglove

I know, but it is important to set it in some context.

Tim Loughton

We know the context. I just want the detail of whether the Home Secretary has made it clear—you should know, I presume, if it is a ministerial policy decision—that it will not be retrospectively applied. Therefore, for my constituent who has a husband from Japan whose visa needs to be renewed within a month or so, but their household income does not meet those thresholds, the new household income targets or thresholds will not apply to them.

Tom Pursglove

Critically important here is that applications that are already lodged are treated under the rules as they are now, but the fact is that we are not intending to apply these measures retrospectively. That gives you exactly the precise certainty you are looking for in relation to that case, and I am giving you a very clear steer about where we are going with this in terms of retrospectivity.

Tim Loughton

Let us go for super, super clarity here on your clear steer, which is helpful. My constituent, who has to apply in the next month for that renewal, will not be penalised because their income does not meet the new thresholds. When they have to reapply in however many years’ time, that will still be the case, so this is on an ongoing basis, effectively.

Tom Pursglove

No changes have been made as yet to the application. In answer to the first part of your question, you are saying that that individual will lodge this application in the next month, so in the next month it will be treated as it is now. In terms of the future bit, what I will say to you is, as the Home Secretary has said and I am saying again now, that we are not going about this in a retrospective way.

Tim Loughton

I think you are agreeing with me. If you are in the country now, you have your visa and you are legal, then you will be able to renew multiple times without being subject to the increased thresholds.

Tom Pursglove

You will need to let me and the Home Secretary come forward with the detail in the normal way of making an announcement, but we do not want to go about this in a retrospective way.

Tim Loughton

Okay, so it is not super, super clear, but hopefully it will be super, super clear before very long. That is a yes, then.

Kim Johnson

I just wanted to pick up on that point about the increase in the threshold. Can you tell the Committee how you arrived at that calculation and how you decided that £38,700 was enough to support dependants?

Tom Pursglove

There are a few important points to make in relation to this. The threshold had not been reviewed since 2012, and we think that it is right that that happens periodically. You will notice that this very much brings it in line with the skilled worker route. It is also important to set this in context in the sense that, for individuals to meet that threshold, if the dependant is in country with the individual, they are able to meet that threshold through their collective income. Savings and investments can also be taken into consideration when meeting it too. We think that there is a strong rationale for having consistency across these various routes. It may also be that individuals can qualify to come to the United Kingdom under other routes beyond the family visa route that you are asking me about.

Kim Johnson

It would be great if you could share with the Committee how you reached the sum of £38,700 as the appropriate level to support families, if that is possible.