Oral evidence: The work of the Immigration Directorates (Q4), HC 1164 Tuesday, 1 April 2014
Oral evidence, 1 April 2014.
Witnesses
James Brokenshire, MP, Minister for Security and Immigration, Sarah Rapson, Director General, UK Visas and Immigration Directorate, and Mandie Campbell, Director General, Immigration Enforcement Directorate, gave evidence.
Chair
This is the routine session we have with the Minister and Director Generals to talk about the immigration and visa section, and indeed, the enforcement section of the Home Office. Can I begin by congratulating you, Sarah Rapson, on your appointment permanently as the new Director General for Visas and Immigration? We did ask the Home Secretary when she came before us exactly a year ago, when the UKBA was abolished, so I think you are probably about to celebrate your first anniversary in the job—
Sarah Rapson
That is true.
Chair
—that the job should be filled permanently, and we are delighted to hear of your appointment. Ms Campbell, congratulations on your appointment as the Head of Enforcement. You were not there a year ago, so you are clearly not one of those people who are in the same job at the same time in the same place. Many congratulations from this Committee to you on your appointment. Minister, we have congratulated you already—or maybe commiserated, given your huge workload—so I will not do it again, but could I begin by asking about the case of Yashika, which was raised by David Burrowes very eloquently and passionately yesterday in the House? You have heard the evidence that we have heard from Mrs Dawes and Yashika’s mother. We very rarely hear individual cases, but it just so happens to be at the right time for us to hear this, since you were giving evidence. Ministers have a very difficult task, do they not, in first of all ensuring that the courts have the final say, according to the law that Parliament passed, but also being able to look at a case very carefully? There is a view that we have heard in evidence that perhaps you have not been able to look at every single aspect of this case, given that it appears the letter of refusal was prepared before you had had an opportunity to look at the case very carefully.
James Brokenshire
I think it is fair to say that these cases are some of the hardest that we have to deal with as Ministers, weighing up the personal consequences of the decisions that we take and obviously looking at the decisions that the courts and tribunals equally make, considering all of the facts and circumstances. The Home Secretary and I have examined the facts of this case, weighed the consideration of the various courts and tribunals, there have been judicial reviews in relation to this case and also applications for injunctions as well to be granted. Weighing all of that, looking at the facts of the case, we concluded that, as Ministers, it needs to be exceptional when you intervene and intercede in that process. After weighing this heavily, we felt that there was not the justification for us as Ministers to intercede in this case.
Chair
Can I just go back to the answer you gave yesterday to David Burrowes? You talked about individual merits. I have in front of me the timetable for Yashika’s examinations, which begin on 14 May 2014 and end on 23 June 2014 at 2 pm. I cannot remember how old your children are, but my daughter is about to do her AS levels, so I have had something almost exactly the same. This is about the most traumatic time, not just for pupils, but also for parents and for teachers, to make sure that all the learning over years and years—as we have heard from Mrs Dawes—should be put to proper use. I wonder whether, looking at what you said yesterday, individual merits, that the best place for this young girl in a compassionate, tolerant, decent country like the United Kingdom should be in Yarl’s Wood, when she is literally a month away from that first examination that she has worked for—and we have heard direct evidence from the headmistress—so very hard. Do you think that that is fair? I know the law is probably on your side, but the point of having Ministers is that they are not robots, that they can look at a case, they can consider it and they have discretion. We know they do, because legal advice to Ministers has suggested, at the end of the day, no matter what Sarah Rapson recommends, no matter what a judge says, a Minister can intervene and make a different decision. Do you not feel, given exceptional circumstances like this—I do not want you to make a decision here—that these are the kinds of issues that really ought to weigh in a decision taken by Ministers?
James Brokenshire
They do weigh on all of us in making these tough decisions at times and looking at what is fair to the individual and also fair to those who go through the process of applying for visas, of following the process in that way. When we look at this case of Miss Bageerathi, who is an adult, she applied for her asylum claim as an adult, she is 19 years old, looking at the facts of this case, looking at the individual circumstances of the consideration that has been given by the court, we did come to the conclusion that it did not have that exceptional nature to mean that it was right for Ministers to intercede. There is a delicate balance to be struck on a Minister intervening in an operational decision, a decision of the courts, knowing what the rules are, to ensure that we have a system where rules are applied, and these are never easy discussions.
Chair
Of course, we understand that. Nobody wants you to exclude the courts, because this is after all a court decision. Sarah Rapson, just help this Committee about the evidence given by David Burrowes concerning the issue of examinations and removal of young people in the middle of their examinations. What is the law?
James Brokenshire
I would say it would be Ms Campbell.
Chair
Sorry, Ms Campbell may know.
Mandie Campbell
Mr Burrowes referred to the—
Chair
Sorry, could you speak up, please, Ms Campbell?
Mandie Campbell
Sorry. Mr Burrowes referred to some guidance and a chapter of the enforcement guidance—
Chair
Yes. We just want to know is that correct or incorrect?
Mandie Campbell
It applies to children under the age of 18 who are sitting exams, not to adults who have entered into a process later.
Chair
So the problem for this particular student is even though she is doing the same course as an 18-year-old might do, the fact is she has crossed that age, so even though she is doing her A-levels, she does not come within the guidance, is that what you are saying?
Mandie Campbell
I am saying the guidance was designed specifically for children going through an education process.
Chair
Of course, we understand that, and obviously I realise you did not design it because you have just started the job, but are you saying there is no ministerial discretion and no discretion over and above what is put in the guidance? If you could just advise the Committee.
Mandie Campbell
I think the Minister has explained that consideration has been given and—
Chair
No, no, I understand what he said. I am talking to you and asking you as the senior official who presumably made the decision to enforce this. You are the Director General of Enforcement, correct?
Mandie Campbell
Yes, that is correct.
Chair
So the case must have come to you rather than Ms Rapson. My apologies for thinking it was Ms Rapson. So it came to you, you looked at the guidance—
Mandie Campbell
I looked at the guidance.
Chair
—you found it came out because she had crossed the age; time had been against her?
Mandie Campbell
I think the complete circumstances of the case warranted proceeding with the removal.
Chair
No, I understand about the whole case, but that is why we have Ministers. I am talking specifically about the age issue. When she was doing her AS-levels, it would not have applied.
Mandie Campbell
The guidance is there because many people are able to take exams—
Chair
No, sorry, I understand. Ms Campbell, I am not asking about the guidance. I understand it. I am taking you at your word that the guidance exists. I am just talking about if she was under the age of 19—
Mandie Campbell
If she was under the age of 18, if she was a child.
Chair
—if she was under the age of 18 when she did her AS-levels, she would qualify, would she?
Mandie Campbell
She would.
Chair
So it is just the fact that she has gone over the age that she would not qualify under the guidance that you have just mentioned?
Mandie Campbell
That is correct.
Chair
It sounds just a little Alice in Wonderland that just because she happens to be slightly older when she is sitting her A-levels, she is caught, but I accept what you say. You did not write this guidance. You are just there to interpret it. David Winnick.
Mr Winnick
It is a question more for the Minister than the civil servants, Chair. Recognising there is undoubtedly—no politician would deny—a strong anti-immigration feeling, if you like, it may be said that some politicians do their best to build on that feeling. Be that as it may, do you think there is a sort of contradiction between that feeling, which I accept entirely exists, and the sort of common humanity shown in this particular case by the persons, fellow pupils, and indeed many other people who have signed the petition, where there is this common humanity or decency when one comes across an individual case where it seems an injustice has been done?
James Brokenshire
It is always very difficult when you look at these individual cases, and that is what weighs heavily on all of us in departments where you have to make these sorts of determinations. Knowing that potentially there is discretion that is available to Ministers in cases, that means that we do look at the representations that are received from Members of Parliament and the advice that we are given. It is important to recognise that we have a situation where we have an adult, someone who is 19. Miss Campbell obviously referred to the guidance that is there, that we have those cases where we look at individuals who may be 17½ and may be coming up to their exams. I think the challenge that we have is where do you draw the line, and that if you do make decisions, what the implications for that for future cases may be. None of this, I can assure you, is easy, because I do recognise the real-life consequences of the decisions, and clearly for Miss Bageerathi, we would not want her to remain in Yarl’s Wood. The detention was simply on the basis of a removal direction being there, with the intent therefore that she would be removed from the country within a few days. All of the challenges that have occurred over the last few days have extended that period. It is obviously not what we would have wanted to see, given that obviously having gone into Yarl’s Wood, the intent was then to remove her, rather than to have any extended period of detention.
Mr Winnick
As far as this particular person is concerned, do we take it that the decision is such that though you have reviewed it, and hopefully looked at it again, there is no change of mind and there is no reprieve, that the person will be deported?
James Brokenshire
We have representations that are made by Members of Parliament. We obviously do consider and examine any further representations that—
Mr Winnick
You will do so?
James Brokenshire
Obviously MPs always will make sometimes representations in relation to deportations, and that is one of the things that I am often late into the evening considering at a last minute in terms of someone who may be about to be deported.
Mr Winnick
There is a deadline, isn’t there? There is not much time left.
James Brokenshire
We are obviously considering this case, given that I have been clear on saying that I do not think it is appropriate for Ministers—and the Home Secretary has equally made that point for us—to intervene. Therefore, we believe that deportation should proceed.
Dr Huppert
Two things I would like to explore, if I can, Minister, but can I first understand what is the harm that you are concerned about, because we have just heard very strong evidence that Yashika has complied with every single rule that has been put in, that she has showed up to school, that lots of people are prepared to be sureties. There is presumably no risk that she would abscond if she were given until after the end of her exams, unless you have something else to suggest. Are you concerned that there will be more students who will come in and study so hard at our academies and other schools? What is the harm that you see if you show clemency?
James Brokenshire
I suppose ultimately there is a principle that if someone does not have the right to be within the UK and they have exhausted all of their appeal rights, there is a duty on us to uphold the law to see that that person is removed at the earliest opportunity. It is difficult for me to go into all of the facts and circumstances of this case, because I am conscious of the privacy of the family and various other issues in going through all of the timeline and all of the details, albeit that I understand that those have been disclosed to the Chairman of the Committee. We have carefully considered this case as to what is appropriate and we believe that as this is an adult, as this claim for asylum was made as an adult, that it has been considered properly and appropriately and that has also been upheld by the courts, and therefore that decision as to whether there is a humanitarian ground for Miss Bageerathi to remain in the UK has been determined. That being the case, our judgment is that removal should be taken forward at the earliest opportunity.
Dr Huppert
I have not heard anything to suggest there would be a particular problem for delaying it, and of course it costs a huge amount of money to hold people, but Minister, you will also be aware that a huge number of people who go into detention at Yarl’s Wood and elsewhere are then released again, on some occasions after many months or even years. In fact, I think Yashika, we heard earlier, has been detained in Yarl’s Wood before. Surely it seems rather perverse that there is a reasonable chance that she will be let out of Yarl’s Wood again, but will just miss her exams or do a lot poorer in them because the Home Office was not prepared to wait. Surely that cannot be a sensible outcome.
James Brokenshire
The detention that took place most recently, which was on 19 March, when Miss Bageerathi was detained on reporting and served with removal directions, that was obviously to take place on 25 March and therefore that—
Dr Huppert
Why was she detained previously and then released?
James Brokenshire
I cannot comment on the history of this. My focus has been on the most recent case, on the decision and the decision to remove on 25 March and the representations that I have received on that front. All I can say is that that detention was with the intent of removal, therefore that was part of a removal process. I think that when we are seeking to uphold a removal, sometimes the risk of absconsion or individuals disappearing is obviously heightened when they know that they are being removed and that, in essence, it is just in a few days’ time.
Dr Huppert
Contrary to the evidence we just had, you think there is a risk that Yashika would abscond?
James Brokenshire
When I look at the decision that was taken to issue the papers of notice for deportation I do not think it is unreasonable in those circumstances for someone to be placed in immigration detention. When I look at the facts of this case, Miss Bageerathi did arrive in the UK before obviously the asylum application and that period of time that elapsed in that way, and I think that a decision was taken that she should be taken to an immigration removal centre pending the removal from the UK within a short space of time. That is not an unreasonable or an unfair decision in all of the circumstances.
Chair
Thank you. Can I just say to colleagues, we obviously have the Minister on other issues as well. Mr Ellis and then Mr Austin, then we will close.
Michael Ellis
Minister, I make representations occasionally to stop deportations on behalf of people in my own constituency. I remember a particularly dramatic one a couple of years ago, I think on Christmas Eve. I just want to explore the law, if I may, in relation to this matter, as far as you can help, and just establish how the law can apply in this case, because how did the family enter Britain, on what type of visa did the family come in? There is a brother and sister as well as the mother, is that right?
James Brokenshire
The advice that I have received is that Mrs Bageerathi arrived as a visitor and that Miss Bageerathi also arrived as a visitor with six months’ leave to remain.
Michael Ellis
Yes. You say that as though they were on separate occasions.
James Brokenshire
They were on separate occasions.
Michael Ellis
No, I am talking about the mother and the daughter. They arrived on separate occasions, do you mean?
James Brokenshire
Yes.
Chair
Can I just say, Minister, I know Mr Ellis will want latitude in what he is asking and there is a purpose for him asking these questions, but I know you may not have every bit of detail and we are very happy to accept whatever you have.
James Brokenshire
What I can say is from the chronology that I have been given, and I think, Mr Vaz, you said that you have been given a chronology as well, so—
Chair
No, I have been given an examination timetable.
James Brokenshire
Sorry, I misunderstood.
Michael Ellis
That is a little different.
James Brokenshire
Yes, of course, very different. The chronology that has been provided to me in relation to the case information was that Mrs Bageerathi arrived in December 2009 and that Miss Yashika Bageerathi arrived on 5 December 2011, both on visitor’s visas.
Michael Ellis
Sorry, I did not appreciate this. So there is a two-year gap between Yashika arriving after her mother?
James Brokenshire
Yes.
Michael Ellis
December 2009 Mrs Bageerathi arrived; in December 2011, Yashika arrived?
James Brokenshire
On the basis of the information I have been provided and the history in relation to this case, yes, that is what I understand to be correct.
Michael Ellis
I see. When did Mrs Bageerathi claim asylum?
Chair
Mr Ellis, I really do not think that these questions are relevant to the removal of Yashika. I am sorry, Mr Ellis, you will be out of order if we have a long history of this case without obviously the consent of the person involved, because they will then want to come back and make representations as to why they arrived. Thank you for nodding, Minister. We must concentrate for the purpose of what we have heard on the evidence that we have received, which concerns Yashika and not the mother and siblings. We will explore that later.
Michael Ellis
Very well.
Chair
So we must stick to that.
Michael Ellis
But just to clarify then what you have already said, that there is a two-year gap?
James Brokenshire
There is, as I understand, a two-year gap.
Michael Ellis
All right. I have nothing else.
Chair
Thank you, that is extremely helpful. Thank you so much for your latitude, Mr Ellis. Mr Austin, if we could concentrate on Yashika rather than Mrs Bageerathi.
Ian Austin
Yes. The thing I am troubled by here is that here is a girl, a young woman, and there does not seem to me to be any evidence that she would disappear. Even if she does eventually have to be removed, why can’t she be allowed to complete her studies? I just find it staggering that you are the Minister and you are sort of, “This is the advice I have been given, this is the procedure as it stands, these are what the rules are”. We are talking here about a young woman with her whole life in front of her, whose entire life will be affected by the quality of the education that she is able to get and the results she is able to obtain. I think it is just a question of common, basic decency that she should be allowed to complete these studies, do her exams and then apply the rules, whatever, but for God’s sake, she is halfway through a course. Imagine if that had been any of us about to take our exams, we had been in that position? I really think you should look at this again.
James Brokenshire
I think, Mr Austin—
Ian Austin
Look, I was a Minister, right? You get all sorts of advice. In the end, you have to decide. What is the point of politicians becoming Ministers if we are not prepared to exercise personal judgment in a case like this?
James Brokenshire
Mr Austin, I can assure you that, as Ministers, we do exercise personal judgment. In weighing that I had to be fair to others who have gone through the system, have applied fairly and appropriately, and weigh that as against an individual case as well, and that is difficult. It is not something that I take lightly or in any sense feel that there is not that approach that I do need to take as a Minister, as anybody else.
Chair
Very briefly.
James Brokenshire
We have to look at the system and we have to look at the robustness and integrity of the system as a whole.
Chair
Indeed. Very briefly, Mr Austin.
Ian Austin
The reason people will find this difficult to understand is that I know of lots of people who have been told they have no right to stay in the UK, but have been here for years and not been removed, unable to work, not studying, some of them have not even been able to learn to speak English, yet here is someone who is working hard to get on in life and you are insisting that she is removed instantly; the rules are applied rigorously in this one case. That is what people are going to find really difficult to understand. I would like you to comment on that, but the other thing, a few moments ago, before you came in, we heard a message from Yashika that has been recorded on an iPad—I think it is in the room—and I would like to ask you to listen to that before you make this decision.
Chair
Let me end this session, but before I do so, Miss Campbell, two airlines have refused to carry Yashika, one is British Airways and one is Malaysian Airlines, is that right?
Mandie Campbell
I am not aware of the situation regarding current decisions by those airlines.
Chair
No, not current, not what happened today; nobody is flying today, but is it correct that airlines have refused to carry her? I understand British Airways has refused to carry her.
Mandie Campbell
That is correct.
Chair
Is that normal? Do airlines turn around and say no to people?
Mandie Campbell
Airlines have the ability to refuse to carry any passenger at any time.
Chair
Have you ever received an explanation from British Airways why they have refused to carry her?
Mandie Campbell
I have not personally received an explanation.
Chair
No. Will you be seeking one?
Mandie Campbell
I will.
Chair
You will. Mr Brokenshire, the Committee has heard this message that has been sent to us. I think the best thing to do is to send it to you so you can have a look at it yourself. We do have—
Ian Austin
Can we not play it now, Chair?
Chair
No, we cannot, Mr Austin. We do not have the ability to do that at the moment, I am afraid. We would like you to hear it, because you are the one making the decision. We have the Home Secretary before us next Tuesday. We do not want to spend 30 minutes talking to the Home Secretary about Yashika’s case. We very much hope that you will reconsider this case, meet with David Burrowes, a very hard-working and assiduous MP, to accept his representations and we will certainly be writing to you with anything further that we receive. That is probably the best way to take it from here, and we would like you to reconsider it.
James Brokenshire
I certainly have accepted Mr Burrowes’ representations and responded to them previously. I agree with you in your summary of him of being a good and assiduous constituency MP.
Chair
If you could look at this again, we would be most grateful. I will write to you and I will send you the link that was mentioned by Mr Austin, because we are not able to play it to you here. Can we move on now to other issues concerning immigration and visas, and we will need to do this pretty rapidly, colleagues. I want to start with foreign national prisoners, if I may. I recently put down a PQ to the Minister for Justice and was told that there are 10,695 foreign prisoners, but I was surprised to learn we do not seem to be able to break them down by nationality, at least in terms of parliamentary questions. Are you able to assist the Committee with a breakdown of the nationalities of those foreign national prisoners? Ms Campbell.
Mandie Campbell
I am not able to provide that to the Committee today.
Chair
Sorry, you will need to speak up, I am afraid. The acoustics are very, very bad in this room.
Mandie Campbell
I am sorry. I cannot give you a breakdown of all the nationalities today, but I am very happy to write to the Committee immediately afterwards with those details.
Chair
Excellent. So you will have the breakdown? We did not have it, because when I asked Chris Grayling, he was not able to tell us. He gave us the figure, which was very useful, but as the Committee has made a cause célèbre of trying to get rid of foreign national prisoners, and as it has already brought down one Home Secretary, we felt it was important that we should keep focused on it. I know you have been in the job for a very short time. You know the breakdown yourself, do you?
Mandie Campbell
There is a breakdown of nationality. I do not know to what period it refers, but I will certainly write to you with the information that I have.
Chair
That would be very helpful, because we noticed in the figures that you very helpfully gave us—and I should really have paid tribute to your predecessor, Mr Harper. We were a fan of Mr Harper’s, because whenever we asked him for information he came back by deadline and he gave us our figures before the deadline, and we should also pass on that praise to Sarah Rapson. We have never experienced that in all the seven years I have chaired the Committee, that we have had information from the Home Office before it was due, so we hope this will not slip under your leadership. But in the Q4 figures, it looked as if you have failed to remove 305 foreign national prisoners. Why was that? Ms Campbell, maybe you know—I know it was before your time—or the Minister.
James Brokenshire
I was just going to say that one part of this was a change in the way that we have recorded this information. We referred to this in our quarter 3 details; that we felt that the information was not as robust as it could be and therefore the numbers reflect a change in the reporting to make it more accurate, I hope, so that we have—
Chair
So is that figure wrong?
James Brokenshire
No, no. The figure that we have provided is more comprehensive and provides a breakdown of the number of individuals whose removal has failed as well as the total number of failed removal attempts. There are circumstances where there may be more than one failed removal attempt, and I think in fairness to the Committee, it is important that we seek to give as much clarity as possible in relation to that, so while there has been an increase between the two quarters, I think in part that can be attributed to what is clearer, more accurate information being provided to the Committee.
Chair
We were very concerned about people like Baksim Bushati, and we referred to him in our last report; someone who had been convicted of serious offences being able to enter the country, because it seemed that the warning index had not been able to flash his name up when he entered the country. What is happening about the warning index, because I think Sir Charles also indicated when he came before us concerns about the robustness of the warnings index in terms of the people entering the country? We would like to know who comes into the UK, basically, and if they have committed an offence, we need to know this, do we not?
James Brokenshire
We do, and I think that the warnings index is a good and effective mechanism for doing that in terms of the National Border Targeting Centre and therefore the screening that takes place to identify people even before they have boarded the aeroplane, as well as the checks that then are undertaken at the primary control points. So there is work that is being undertaken through the border systems programme, which I know that you took evidence from.
Chair
That is a long answer to my question about, “How did this man get into the country?” Because the judge in the case, as I am sure you know, was highly critical. He said our borders were like sieves. As a result of the Bushati case and the other case that this Committee has questioned the Home Secretary about, the Raed Salah case—we have a series of rules about what happens when people arrive. What have you done as a result of that case?
James Brokenshire
On the Bushati case, my understanding is that that individual entered the UK in a clandestine fashion, so the warnings index obviously unfortunately would not have picked that up, and that is part and parcel of the border—
Chair
How did he arrive then?
James Brokenshire
I do not think that information is known, so there are steps that have been taken through Border Force, and the evidence that Sir Charles Montgomery would have given to this Committee in terms of, for example, the 11,000 detections of clandestines that have been identified. It is all part of that work in securing our borders and why the work of Border Force is just so integral to this.
Chair
Indeed. Ms Campbell, do you know how many passports are not checked on exit from the UK? We know passenger information is given in the vast majority of cases. We were given a figure of 5 million by Sir Charles Montgomery, 5 million not being checked. He has now written to us today, to each member of the Committee, to tell us that there are 3.8 million cases that do not go through Semaphore. Is that right?
Mandie Campbell
I am afraid that is not my part of my business.
Chair
That is not yours. Whose is that?
James Brokenshire
I have seen a copy of the letter that Sir Charles has provided to you, Mr Vaz, and he indicated in that letter that we have our Semaphore system, which is the computer system that deals with advanced passenger information—
Chair
Yes, we know what that is.
James Brokenshire
—and that indicates that we have advanced passenger information on around 96% of all of the scheduled routes from and to the UK. Sir Charles, in his letter, said that on the basis that Semaphore was connected to it in that manner that approximately 86 million passengers are within Semaphore and 3.6 million are not within Semaphore.
Chair
Yes, but does that not cause you concern, that there are 6.5 million or so people who are leaving the country—
James Brokenshire
It is 3.6 million—
Chair
3.6 million.
James Brokenshire
—but that is why we are pursuing the exit checks in the commitment that we have given so that we are getting that screening of people who are coming through, just to do more to close down the gap even more, but we have one of the most robust systems anywhere in the world around that.
Chair
Of course. We would be astonished if you came before this Committee and said it was all going terribly wrong and it was not robust. Of course you have to say that and we accept that, but we are concerned about the 3.6 million who are leaving the country and the Government’s commitment to having exit checks by the time of the next election. We know all the problems with e-borders and why that had to go, and we know that this Government did not sign the contract. We know that there were not any benchmarks given to that contract. We hope all the senior civil servants involved have been put on procurement training, but the issue still remains there are people entering and exiting from our country and we do not know who they are.
James Brokenshire
That is why we have given our commitment to put in place the exit checks, so we are closing out that 4% gap, either through further advanced passenger information or through checks on embarkation. That is part of the border systems programme.
Chair
When is that going to be done? We understand that, Sir Charles told us. When are we going to have that border closed once and for all?
James Brokenshire
The border systems programme is working to achieve that by spring of next year as part of our commitment that we have given in the Coalition programme.
Chair
Spring of next year. I have been around long enough to know spring can turn into autumn. We are saying by the date of the general election, presumably, 7 May?
James Brokenshire
Yes, it is that timescale that we are working towards and by—
Chair
So when you come before this Committee next year in your last appearance as Immigration Minister before this Committee, you can tell us that the borders will certainly now be secure?
James Brokenshire
I said spring, I should have said April even, April 2015, that we have exit checks in place and that is—
Chair
1 April?
James Brokenshire
I will leave it at April, Mr Vaz.
Chair
Before we move on to sham marriages and Mr Ellis, when you answered Mr Winnick on the last occasion about your figures on net migration, are you telling this Committee that the 100,000 is now not going to be reached?
James Brokenshire
No, our focus remains on bringing net migration down from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands.
Chair
You are telling this Committee you are still on track that by 7 May 2015, net migration will be below 100,000?
James Brokenshire
Our focus remains, as I said at the last Committee session, on reducing net migration down from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands by that timeline.
Chair
I understand the word “focus” but you are not telling this Committee that that is what is going to happen, which is of course the Coalition Agreement. Is this because, as Mark Field has said, our distinguished parliamentary colleague, that you cannot control the people who go out? You cannot, can you? If you have a net migration figure, it means you must have some control over those who leave the country and you have no control over EU migration.
James Brokenshire
In part, that is about the work that Immigration Enforcement undertakes, it is about the steps that the Immigration Bill puts in place to create a circumstance where people who should not be here are removed or the circumstances are that they voluntarily leave as well, so there are those mechanisms that we do have there, as well obviously as the steps to control immigration coming into this country.
Michael Ellis
Before I come to the issue of sham marriages, I just wanted to ask, because I think when you were last before us I asked you about the backlog that there has been for quite some time in visa applications. Can I just ask you whether any progress has been made in the temporary and the permanent visa applications?
James Brokenshire
I think Ms Rapson may be able to update the Committee on that.
Michael Ellis
Ms Rapson, do you know more about that?
Sarah Rapson
Yes, and I learned about it—
Chair
Oh, sorry, can I just stop you? We are coming to that with Mr Winnick later on. If we could stick to sham marriages, please, Mr Ellis.
Michael Ellis
I would just like to ask—
Chair
We will come back to that.
Michael Ellis
I would just like to ask—
Chair
Order, Mr Ellis. Mr Winnick—
Michael Ellis
Mr Vaz, I am entitled to ask questions of this Committee. I should—
Chair
Mr Ellis, order. Please will you ask about sham marriages—Mr Winnick is going to ask about migration and the backlogs—or we will pass on.
Michael Ellis
Very well. We will come back to that, but let us ask about sham marriages. What progress is being made as far as the implementation of the recommendations are concerned? The Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration report talked about the enforcement in that area. Who can answer questions about that?
Mandie Campbell
Perhaps I should say a little. The report was in January this year, but on findings from last year. The move into a new enforcement command has seen a significant increase in the relationship and the numbers of interventions in relation to potential sham marriages. We have increased the numbers of visits to registrars’ offices. We have much improved the relationship with the General Registrar’s Office and we are now getting a much better flow of information between us. That has resulted in the numbers of interventions and arrests during the course of the end of last year more than doubling on the previous year.
Michael Ellis
You put that down to the work that you have been doing with local registrar offices?
Mandie Campbell
It is. It is local registrar offices, it is increasing training, it is attending their conferences to talk to registrars about the sorts of abuse that might be being perpetrated and encouraging them to refer more cases to us.
Michael Ellis
There is clearly an improvement in the compliance with their statutory duty to report suspicious marriages?
Mandie Campbell
The statutory duty has been introduced as part of the Immigration Bill and that will come in in two stages, so the first is to enable a better exchange of information and then to put a statutory duty to refer cases to us where there is an immigration gain potentially from the marriage.
Michael Ellis
Yes, thank you. I will hand it back to Labour.
James Brokenshire
If I may, Mr Ellis, if it may help the Committee, in the period from July to December 2013, Immigration Enforcement carried out 796 interventions, which led to 466 arrests. That was as compared to 221 arrests during the whole of the previous year, so there has been a step up on enforcement, but in my role as the Minister, I do want to see more being done on this, that we have, yes, the new provisions in the Immigration Bill, but it is about how we can have better connections between different parts of Government on this and how we are getting better intelligence, how if we can fuse that intelligence, that will also strengthen our work further, and how we are piloting a number of sham marriage hubs to create and strengthen that relationship with local registrars, investigating and tackling suspected sham marriage operations and ensuring that potential sham marriages are considered from a criminal investigation perspective. So I want to say to this Committee that while, yes, we have seen that step up in terms of enforcement, I am not satisfied simply by that. I think that there is a lot more for us to do and that is certainly one of my focuses in terms of the work of Immigration Enforcement, given some of the abuse, seeing some people who are trafficked into this country simply for the case of sham marriage and why it is such an important—
Michael Ellis
Yes. Congratulations on the work you have done so far. I will hand it back to Labour.
Nicola Blackwood
Clearly the work that is being done on sham marriages is important for all sorts of reasons, but I recently had a case where a couple who were getting genuinely married did not realise that they needed to apply for a visa because first, the groom was British and the bride was not British. They did not live in the UK, but they were coming to the UK for the marriage and they were not informed by the registry office of their requirement to apply for a visa. I am just wondering, as part of the new statutory requirements, whether there will also be a requirement for the registry office to inform brides and grooms of visa requirements and so on as part of it. It would be helpful to stop genuine couples getting caught in up unnecessary ways, because this particular case did end up with the detention of a genuine bride who was not going to migrate to the UK at all, they were just coming to get married and then go out again.
James Brokenshire
The new requirements obviously focus on where there is, I suppose, an immigration advantage that could be gained from the partnership and therefore the notification would be given to the Home Office. As part of the implementation of the proposals, I think it is important that there is proper guidance, that there is that proper information so that people understand why this is being done, it is not to prejudge or to automatically come to some conclusion, but gives some time and space for the Home Office to be able to examine the information that is being provided to them and obviously there is a further extension of time if there is some reasonable suspicion of there being something untoward in terms of that relationship.
Nicola Blackwood
Clearly I think with the right amount of notification, genuine couples are very happy to comply with the requirements, and in this case there was no bad faith, but it did tie up the immigration and detention and everybody working that out. It was, I imagine, quite costly, so making sure that the right notification occurs at the right time for genuine couples I think would be very valuable, so I just wanted to flag that up at this stage.
James Brokenshire
That is why I made the point about the some of the hubs that are being set up, so that we can have a stronger practical link between the Home Office and the registrars and making sure that it is not simply the letter or the wording in the Act that is provided there, but it is also the practical enforcement and how these provisions are applied in that way.
Dr Huppert
Hopefully a few fairly quick questions; one just firstly for the Minister. You said that exit checks will be in place by April 2015. On Tuesday, 11 March, Sir Charles Montgomery said we will be on track to deliver that—replacing the warnings index and Semaphore—but not the full e-borders capability, by the general election. Are you promising that by April 2015 we will have the full e-borders capability or a stripped-down version of it, because we want the full thing on time?
James Brokenshire
E-borders was, as you will recall, the concept of pushing out our borders and how we use advanced passenger information. Indeed, it led to the creation of the Semaphore system itself, which I am sure Mr Vaz will remember from previous sessions of evidence past in terms of the long history of e-borders. But the border systems programme, which takes forward the borders element, is that combination of advanced passenger information plus information that is provided on exit checks. I think what Sir Charles was indicating in that comment was—and it comes back to Mr Vaz’s question from earlier on in relation to the 96% and the closing down of the 4%—that we do want to expand advanced passenger information as much as possible. For some airlines, there will be legal limitations in their own domestic laws as to why they feel unable to provide that, and for that small group, it is where there are checks on embarkation, checks at points of departure that are intended to close down that gap to give the full picture.
Dr Huppert
We will compare that to what is delivered by April 2015, but can I ask a question to Sarah Rapson? I think this one is for you. I have had a number of problems with people who are being employed in the UK but whose family cannot come to visit. I have one particular one where somebody’s parents were told they could not come because they had broken the six months in 12 rule, which says how long people could come to visit. I have an email from Home Office officials saying there was this rule, but on the Government’s advice, section 1.5, it says very clearly there is no rule that states a visitor may only remain in the UK for six months out of any 12 months. Is there a rule about this and is there any way that the advice on the website can fit with the decisions that are being made by Home Office officials so that we can have people staying in the UK because they can have their families to come and visit?
Sarah Rapson
I do not know the answer to that question, Dr Huppert, but I am happy to take it away and come back to you if there is a difference between what we are saying by way of letters out and on the website. I am happy to come back to you with that specific question.
Dr Huppert
That would be very helpful, because I am concerned that these rules are driving people away, and I have had employers also get in touch to say they are unable to hire the best people for the jobs because of constraints on whether their parents can come to visit. I will contact you directly with the details on this, if that is all right. If I can just ask one final question to the Minister then, and hopefully this one will be fairly quick as well, are you aware of the study—and I touched on this yesterday—by Matrix Evidence, An Economic Analysis of Alternatives to Long-Term Detention? Has this been brought across your desk yet?
James Brokenshire
It has not, I am sorry to say.
Dr Huppert
I do hope you will take the trouble—
James Brokenshire
I will look out for it now that you have brought it to my attention.
Dr Huppert
—to have a look at it, because they do a detailed assessment. As you know, around 30,000 migrants go into detention each year, quite a lot of them spend more than three months in detention, some more than a year. About 40% of those held for more than three months are then released, so it is quite an expensive process. They have a recommendation that would save, over five years, £377.4 million, and as I touched on yesterday, in other countries where they have done similar things, they have had a better compliance rate. Would you have a look at it and let me or the Committee know your assessment of that?
James Brokenshire
I am certainly very content to look at the report, but I would emphasise what I said yesterday on the fact that people are held in detention either perhaps if they are time-served foreign national offenders or in circumstances where there may be removal that is occurring. Yes, clearly we do want to see the public safeguarded and the requirements for detention in those circumstances, but also if someone is to be removed that we do seek to reduce and minimise the amount of time that people are held in detention. But as I indicated yesterday, detention is there for a purpose and is there to uphold the law.
Dr Huppert
What is the purpose for the hundreds every year who are held for more than three months and then released?
James Brokenshire
It may be that circumstances have progressed that we are not able, for legal reasons or for the situation in a particular country, to remove and therefore that someone can then leave because of the time periods, the actual prospect of achieving a removal in those circumstances, or it may be that a court has decided that someone should be released in some way. It is a number of different factors that would apply, but the basic principle of having detention is and will remain important to ensure that we are able to uphold our rules. I will certainly look at the report that you have made reference to, Mr Huppert.
Nicola Blackwood
I just wanted to follow up on the point that you have made about effective deportation and speeding up the process, and one of the problems with detention being where that is not possible. One of the apparently successful operations that has been run between the Met and what was UKBA, but now Immigration Enforcement, is Operation Nexus, which has sped up the removal of foreign national offenders in London, and appears to have done an effective job at performing more checks, identifying foreign national prisoners and so on. I am just wondering what the assessment of that has been and why it has not been implemented elsewhere in the country, because this is an area with which we are struggling to improve our performance.
James Brokenshire
We are certainly looking to expand and roll out Operation Nexus, because I think it has been effective in, for example, dealing with identification, because sometimes that can be a real challenge on securing and knowing who a person is therefore to be able to remove them back to their home country or to be able to see if there are, for example, identification documents that they may be holding at that time. It is also what we can do within the prison estate, so that is on arrest, how that then joins up and can aid removal subsequently. I visited Maidstone Prison on Friday, which is a foreign national offender only prison, and again, the steps that can be taken when someone arrives at that facility to be able to take information and the assistance that can provide. So we are looking at ways in which the process can be sped up and therefore for foreign national offenders, Operation Nexus, the support that can be provided within the custodial estate can make, I think, an important difference in ensuring that there is a speedier and effective way of seeing people removed from this country. That is something I want to see us taking further forward.
Nicola Blackwood
Have you established any kind of timetable for rolling out Operation Nexus to other areas of the country? Have you perhaps established hotspots around the country where this might be appropriate? Maybe Ms Campbell.
James Brokenshire
It has certainly started off in the Met and I visited Croydon custody suite myself to see the joint operation down there between the police and our officers from Immigration Enforcement. There are other parts of the country that it is now starting to be developed in, but if it is something the Committee rightly have focused on, perhaps I can write to the Committee to give some sense of that further roll-up and scale-up, because I think it is an important programme for us to develop.
Mark Reckless
Minister, you have explained that stronger enforcement is one way that we can get more people to leave the country. Do you think that the strength of the housing market, a stronger currency, and giving people access to their pension pots might also lead to rather more people setting up a new life abroad and leaving the country?
James Brokenshire
We have certainly taken steps in the Immigration Bill to address some of those factors on, for example, the landlords’ provisions that you will be very familiar with, Mr Reckless, in terms of the passage of the Bill. We are not currently seeking to expand that list further but obviously we keep all of these issues under review. Because it is about creating the environment where people want to leave, and there have been significant increases in the number of voluntary removals of people who have no right to stay here leaving. That is certainly something that we do want to encourage. It is cost-effective to achieve it in that way and, therefore, those elements that may encourage people to stay are creating a climate where they recognise that it is right for them to leave.
Mark Reckless
I am not sure that is quite the point I was getting at, Minister. It has been suggested that one of the challenges with meeting our immigration target is that emigration from the country fell off quite sharply between about 2008 and 2010-11. At the same time we had the financial crisis, we saw the level of the pound fall quite a lot and also the housing market was less good. I am just asking you whether the fact that people have greater housing wealth, the fact that the pound buys more now again overseas, and that from next April we are giving people access to their pension pots, might enable and facilitate rather more people deciding to emigrate than would otherwise be the case?
James Brokenshire
My focus is rather on those who have come here and should be returning. That is why we have for example, as you know, been focused on issues of students who have come here to apparently study but then have worked and have overstayed, and what work we can do to ensure that people do leave at the end of their time that they should be leaving. Your comment perhaps is focused on British citizens and I think that is not a matter for me as the Immigration Minister.
Mark Reckless
Surely it is part of our target for net migration, is it not?
James Brokenshire
Our focus and our target is about reducing those who may want to come here, therefore, the migration in and the steps that we have taken, the successes that we have had on reducing net migration from outside of the EU by around 82,000. Clearly there are pressures on EU migration and that is what—
Mark Reckless
But if our target is one of net migration, surely we are interested in both the numbers coming in and the numbers going out?
James Brokenshire
We are, and that is why I make the point on where I see my role as being is seeing that those who come here from overseas then return and leave at the end of their stay, and that we have a robust system to achieve that.
Mark Reckless
I sought to put down a written question asking whether the changes to the pension regime might impact on the net migration numbers. I had a discussion with the Table Office whether we should submit it to the Home Office or Treasury. On balance we decided to submit it to the Treasury. Do you think that was the correct decision?
James Brokenshire
It is certainly analysis that I have not seen in the Home Office, so it may well be that Treasury or other departments of Government may be analysing the broader impacts of those changes, which are important and give pensioners that flexibility to manage their pension pots. That is something I think that is a good thing.
Mr Winnick
Ms Rapson, perhaps I can just preface my question by saying that when occasionally—obviously it should not be made a habit for any of us writing on behalf of constituents—I ask you to look at a particular case you do so. I appreciate it and I am sure my colleagues do so as well. But obviously you could hardly do so in all cases when MPs write. On the question of a backlog, could you give a round figure of the existing number that would come in that category?
Sarah Rapson
When we talked about the temporary and permanent migration backlogs before, you remember November 2012 the amount of work we had in the system was up at 225,000 cases. The latest figures that the Committee have had that relate to December 2013 show that as being over half—it is now 113,000 cases—
Mr Winnick
You will have to speak up a bit I am afraid.
Sarah Rapson
I am sorry, I thought I was. It was 113,000 at the end of December. Of the cases that we have in the system at the moment the only cases that we have are those that are either in service standard, we are waiting for the customer to give us some additional information, or they are complex, so we suspect abuse and we need to do further checks, or they are on hold because of a judgment. So in actual fact we have no backlogs in temporary and permanent migration at the moment because all of those cases are either in service standard, we are waiting for something from customers, or there is a block and we—
Mr Winnick
So you do not recognise there is a backlog?
Sarah Rapson
There was a backlog in temporary and permanent migration but there is no backlog now. Of the cases that we have in the system they are all either in service standard, we are waiting for the customer to give us some additional information, or they are blocked because we are waiting for either additional checks to be made or there is a judgment we are waiting for an outcome from. So this is significant progress and I think the Committee would be pleased to hear about it.
Mr Winnick
As I understand the position, in 2012 Capita, who received the contract, was asked to consider, cleanse—whatever that means—and conclude 150,000 cases. By the end of September 2013 Capita had assessed 119,196 cases of which 83,400 were cases where a barrier to removal had been identified. Has that situation changed?
Sarah Rapson
There are two separate things here, Mr Winnick. What I have just given you are the figures for the applications in temporary and permanent migration. Then when you start to talk about Capita you are talking about the migration refusal pool that we have talked about in this Committee before, which is the responsibility of Immigration Enforcement.
Mr Winnick
The contract with Capita, as I understand it, was changed in June last year and that led to a very significant increase of a number of cases that are considered to be barrier to removal. Is that the situation?
James Brokenshire
No, Mr Winnick, I do not think that is the case. Capita are effectively cleansing this information, in other words checking to see whether there are individuals who have left the country, whether there is some sort of trace of an individual, whether there are barriers to their removal and, therefore, whether the matter requires further focus from the Home Office. My clear understanding—and Ms Campbell may be able to give some further information on this—is that was part of the process in washing through all of this information before it was handed to the Home Office as having these barriers and that was what triggered those numbers increasing, rather than this being as a consequence of any changes to the underlying contract.
Mr Winnick
The contract originally, Minister, was £3 million, was it not?
James Brokenshire
I think you are referring to the information that was previously provided to the Committee by the predecessor.
Mr Winnick
Was that correct? Was it £3 million?
James Brokenshire
Sorry?
Mr Winnick
Was that information correct, that the contract was worth £3 million?
James Brokenshire
I think, if I may, I am just finding the—
Chair
If I could help the Minister, Capita wrote to the Committee to say that the contract was worth £4 million, with a possible £30 million if they did well. Is that right?
James Brokenshire
The details that I have seen is that when the contract was entered into it was over four years with a two year potential extension, and that the aggregate value of the potential contract at that time when it was entered into was up to the region of £30 million in total over all of those years. That was the figures that I was just reaching for.
Mr Winnick
So this firm could get as much as £30 million of public money for the work that it is contracted to do. Am I right?
James Brokenshire
Under the terms of the contract that is the headline figure that I have seen. It is worth underlining that the reason for bringing Capita in to do that work on the migration refusal pool was to be able to scale up quickly to really get a grip of this. That is why the decision was taken to contract the service out rather than seeking to do this in-house. Therefore, equally, the ability to turn it off and to scale it back at the end of what was that defined period of work.
Mr Winnick
Is that not the responsibility of the Home Office to do its own work? Why contract out such a substantial amount of money that could be £30 million, perhaps more if the contract is renewed? Why does the Home Office not do it itself?
James Brokenshire
I suppose it is a judgment that is taken on what is best done in-house versus what is contracted out in terms of the nature of the service, the speed and ability to scale up and deal with something quickly, and equally then the ability to scale back and to turn that service off at the end of the day. The judgment was taken that the best way of managing the migration refusal pool, the contract management of it, was to do that by way of Capita rather than by dealing with this in-house. That was the judgment that was taken.
Mr Winnick
If someone had left the UK before the contract started would the company nevertheless receive funding for that?
James Brokenshire
My understanding is that the contract is structured on a basis that steps are undertaken to carry out different checks. Part of that is to identify whether someone has departed or not and, therefore, you do need to run those checks to see whether there are traces and there is work that is involved in that. Therefore, that is something that would form part of the contract.
Michael Ellis
I just wanted to perhaps clarify the position, Ms Rapson, because I think you referred to cases that are effectively in progress as far as the temporary and permanent visa applications are concerned. I do not think any cases in progress would count towards a backlog. We are interested in actual backlog cases, that is to say cases where you are not waiting for more information, you are not waiting for somebody to write to you about something, you are not in the process of doing something. It is literally a case that is a backlog. Do you have any of those left or are you saying you have cleared those completely?
Sarah Rapson
I am saying we have cleared all of those completely. So the only cases that we are working on are those where we are waiting for something from the customer, some new information, and also those cases that are blocked because we are doing further checks, because there is a potential for abuse or that there is a judgment that is in the way of us being able to make the case. So the point is: all of the cases that we could work on right now have been worked on and are finished.
Michael Ellis
So the only cases that are outstanding at the moment are those cases where you are waiting for somebody else to do something?
Sarah Rapson
Correct.
Michael Ellis
A court or somebody else to do something, so you are having to wait for them before you can take the next step yourself?
Sarah Rapson
Correct. There will always be some cases like that.
Michael Ellis
Yes, of course. Have you changed your way of calculating these figures?
Sarah Rapson
The big difference has been getting a much better understanding of how long we have had these cases in the system. In my first appearance before you when we talked about the 225,000 cases, I could not tell at that point how many of those were in service standard and how many were not. I now can do that. That is why we have been able, for example, to publish a new set of service standards that will give people much more of a guarantee about when they will get their decision.
Michael Ellis
Just so that we are absolutely clear on this: when you came before us last time you mentioned 200,000?
Sarah Rapson
225,000, yes.
Michael Ellis
That was because at that time you were not able to break down that figure more precisely?
Sarah Rapson
Correct.
Michael Ellis
Are you saying that there would necessarily have been many within that 225,000 that were not backlog but cases that you were waiting for some external force to take some action before the Home Office could do anything about it?
Sarah Rapson
Yes, and some cases that would have been in service standard as well, but I could not break it down at that point.
Michael Ellis
Now you can?
Sarah Rapson
Now we can.
Michael Ellis
You are saying that there are none that require action now that are devoid of any external force?
Sarah Rapson
We have cleared all the cases that we can and we are either waiting for the customer to give us more information or some additional checks because we have concerns about those particular cases from other agencies.
Michael Ellis
Thank you very much.
Chair
Let us just look at what you have said to Mr Ellis. In the last figures you gave us the number of cases in Q3 in 2013 in the temporary and permanent migration pool you said that there were 131,515 cases. They had gone down by 44,988. That is right, is it?
Sarah Rapson
Yes.
Chair
You are telling us that the 131,515 cases have now all disappeared into different pots?
Sarah Rapson
No, I am not, no.
Chair
So where have they gone?
Sarah Rapson
The vast majority of them—
Chair
They are still there but they have been reclassified?
Sarah Rapson
They are in service standard. So I am being very clear—
Chair
So they are still there?
Sarah Rapson
Yes, but they are within service standard.
Chair
Yes, I see.
Sarah Rapson
So it is not that we have no work in the system. A proportion of those are still within service standard, which we will work through and we will get done within service standard—
Chair
So the 131,515 cases, how many members of your staff were involved in reclassifying them into service standard? It is quite a big operation, is it not, in the space of three months to remove 131,515 and reclassify them? How many members of staff were involved in that?
Sarah Rapson
We have put more resources into clearing the cases.
Chair
Yes, I just need to know how many?
Sarah Rapson
I can tell the Committee but it is a number of hundred additional members of staff. I can confirm—
Chair
You put 100 members of staff to look at the temporary and permanent migration pool?
Sarah Rapson
I will write to the Committee with the precise numbers but we have put in a number of hundreds of additional staff to clear these cases sufficiently quickly so that the residual cases that we have got in the system are those that are within service standard, or we are waiting for the customer to give us additional information, or they are complex cases.
Chair
What is that called now? Because we were very concerned, as you know, over a number of years—and we welcome all the hard work you have done, Ms Rapson—what is that group now called? If it is no longer called the temporary and permanent migration pool, if we have zero in there because there is nothing in there that is out of service standard—
Sarah Rapson
There are cases in there but they are—
Chair
They are still there?
Sarah Rapson
They are.
Chair
But they are in standard?
Sarah Rapson
They are.
Chair
So they are still there?
Sarah Rapson
They are still there but they are in standard.
Chair
At what level?
Sarah Rapson
They are in standard.
Chair
Yes, but at what level? Surely not 131,000?
Sarah Rapson
No, no, no. The March numbers that the Committee will not have seen—
Chair
These are your figures?
Sarah Rapson
Yes, absolutely. The March figures that you will not have seen yet but you will get shortly, in a timely fashion, will show a much lower number of total work in progress, and of that—
Chair
I understand. Rather than work in progress let us stick to the names we have. In the temporary and permanent migration pool how many will we expect in March? Obviously we have not seen them; the Minister has to see them first.
Sarah Rapson
I cannot give you the numbers because, as you quite rightly say, they have to be approved and you understand how this works, Chair. But they will be a lower number than the 113,000 that you had in December.
Chair
But they will still be in there?
Sarah Rapson
Yes, there will still be a temporary and permanent migration line.
Chair
So it is not zero, there are still cases in progress?
Sarah Rapson
No, there will always be cases in the system because there will always be cases coming in every day.
Chair
Sure, I think the point Mr Ellis made so eloquently.
Mr Winnick
It would be useful if we could have confirmation of what you have just told us. Because your predecessor—as the Chair will know—gave us various designations where this backlog occurred and we asked if it could not be redefined in a way which people would understand, not only Members of Parliament but the public at large. So in answer to the questions that have been put do you think you could write to us?
Chair
You know how careful you have to be with these figures because predecessors have come before the Committee and had to apologise to the Committee because the figures were wrong or wrongly classified. So we do not mind you taking time but we would like it by next week if we could.
James Brokenshire
Provided the figures have been cleared through me.
Chair
Minister, we will come to you and your workload later. I am worried about your workload. In the meantime, let us go to Nicola Blackwood and David Winnick on rule 35 reporting.
Nicola Blackwood
Clearly there has been an increase in rule 35 reporting over the last year, a trend going up from just over 300 to 431 rule 35 reports in the third quarter of 2013. But only 9% of these reports resulted in an individual being released. I just wondered what your assessment is of such a low number of reports resulting in an action, given that these reports are relating to probably the most vulnerable people in the detained estate?
James Brokenshire
It is worth underlining that we have strengthened the guidance around rule 35, which I think is right, so that there is good and clear understanding and medical practitioners who are involved in rule 35 recognise and report in the way that they should do. It is worth underlining that rule 35 has a relatively low threshold and so a medical practitioner need only have a concern in respect of this. For example, one of the facets of rule 35 is whether someone has been subject to torture and that may be something that they disclose. The medical practitioner may then obviously pick up on that and may make a rule 35 report. That may have already been factored into, for example, the consideration or the disclosure that that individual may have made in respect of their asylum claim. That has then been considered through the process and been discounted. So it is not that that is determinative, there is a threshold, but it is important that we have a mechanism to ensure that in respect of this vulnerable group of individuals that medical practitioners do report that in and pick up on those implications or pick up on any signs so that could be properly reflected in the consideration of that case.
Nicola Blackwood
Or course. I think the Committee is quite concerned because of the inspection of the Chief Inspector of Prisons in August 2013 of Harmondsworth in which he found that the rule 35 process did not provide assurance that the most vulnerable would be protected against the effects of detention. He described a particularly distressing case of an 84 year-old Canadian. The rule 35 report on this individual described him as frail, 84 years old, with Alzheimer’s disease and demented, unfit for detention or deportation and requiring social care. He was not released from detention, he was transported at various stages back and forth from hospital in handcuffs and eventually died. This is clearly not what should happen. Rule 35 reports are designed specifically to identify cases like this and prevent these kinds of incidents happening. The Committee has had concerns about the implementation and effectiveness of rule 35 implementation raised with us on a number of occasions. Given that this concern has been raised about Harmondsworth specifically, I wonder what action you would like to take to make sure that rule 35 with the new guidance has been properly implemented across the detention estate. This is about identifying those who should not be in detention for specific medical reasons within those rule 35 cases.
James Brokenshire
There are a few points I would make very quickly. We did issue new instructions on completion of rule 35 reports in October and training was delivered to healthcare representatives. There was a revised instruction on rule 35 reports that was given on 24 January last year with a mandatory training package for officers involved in managing immigration detention. That has now become available and face-to-face training has been given. But I would also highlight that the quality audit team is going to be doing an audit of rule 35 processes between April and June this year so that we can get further assurance through that audit process on processes, procedures, for the very reasons that you highlight, so that we are raising the bar, that we are seeking to ensure that standards are maintained given the nature of the subject matter that we are dealing with here.
Nicola Blackwood
What will be the extent of that audit? Will it just be that the paperwork is all properly included? Will it address all the detention centres? Will it be at Home Office level? Do you know the extent of that audit?
James Brokenshire
The quality audit team work separately from the operational team, so this is I suppose what you might characterise an internal audit type function to give us reassurance and audit performance against agreed standards so we see the standards that have been set. So I would expect that type of challenge to be conducted. I am very happy to set out some further detail on the nature of the work of the quality audit team and the work that they will be doing on rule 35 in the coming months because this is an important issue.
Nicola Blackwood
My last question is, what action has been taken at Harmondsworth to make sure that specifically there where a problem has been identified this is being addressed?
James Brokenshire
Where recommendations are made we respond to them, we set out an action plan and, therefore, recommendations are pursued in respect of the individual reports that are received. That is something that immigration enforcement will follow through on.
Mr Clappison
Can I ask Sarah Rapson about the evidence as to migration and job displacement? It is a complicated subject, the effect of migration on employment of the resident population because the migrants create demand for things themselves. Do you have evidence that non-EU migration is having an impact on resident population employment? You are looking quizzical, I do not know if I am asking the right person here.
James Brokenshire
I am happy to take that point. You will be aware when I was here at the last evidence session we spoke about the report. Indeed Mr Huppert asked me a few questions on that particular subject. The specific report did say that there has been little evidence in the literature of statistically significant impact from EU migration on native employment outcomes. It then went on to say significant EU migration is still a relatively recent phenomenon and this does not imply that impacts do not occur in some circumstances.
Mr Clappison
I was asking about non-EU migration.
James Brokenshire
Sorry, yes.
Mr Clappison
To quote from the same report, I believe it also says, “There is some evidence of some labour market displacement, particularly by non-EU migrants in recent years when the economy was in recession.” Of course it is the non-EU migration that we aim to control.
James Brokenshire
We had the Migration Advisory Committee report that preceded this and the impacts of migration on the UK native employment report, which is the report, Mr Clappison, you refer to, highlighted that the MAC report did include valuable new research on the impact of immigration on employment rates of UK natives, including a tentative finding that there was evidence that a rise in the stock of non-EU migrants is associated with a reduction in native employment rates. There was the MAC report that preceded this literature review and so I would point to that as providing the evidence and indication of the impacts that can operate within the employment market.
Mr Clappison
If these impacts are taking place would it not be reasonable to assume that they come about from non-EU migrants taking up low skilled jobs? Do you have any evidence as to how these non-EU migrants are able to obtain entrance to the country to come and work in low skilled jobs, as this is something that the Government has set its face against?
James Brokenshire
That is certainly what we have done in terms of the changes that we have made to our visa structure so that the tier two visa for skilled routes is—as the name suggests—for those skilled occupations. The literature review is looking at the history and all of the documented evidence that has taken place to date. The point is that there is equally illegal working that can operate in this sphere as well, and that is certainly something that we are looking very carefully and very closely at given, clearly, that illegal working impacts—as the literature reviews have said—on those least advantaged; the low-skilled and low-waged. That is where the impact seems to be felt the most.
Mr Clappison
In the cases where there is legal working are you able to say anything about which routes the non-EU migrants concerned have used to obtain entrance to the country?
James Brokenshire
I cannot offer you that level of detail, Mr Clappison, but I can certainly underline the careful consideration we are giving to legal as well as illegal routes, given the impacts that it can have on the labour market.
Mr Clappison
One final question. I have not asked many questions, Chair.
Chair
No, of course, feel free. I have no problems.
Mr Clappison
What did the Government report on the impact of migration on UK native employment include on job displacement for EU workers?
James Brokenshire
I think I mistakenly answered your last question first. So in the time-honoured tradition I would refer you to the reply I gave some moments ago, if I may. My apologies for mishearing you in the first place. I suppose I would highlight the quote that I gave that the evidence base is least developed because it is only recently that we have seen such an impact of EU net migration, and obviously the doubling of the figures that we have seen over the course of the last year. The analytical review did say that because it is a recent phenomenon this does imply that impacts do not occur in some circumstances, was the wording that they used.
Mr Clappison
The time-honoured expression of referring to previous answers is not always as helpful as your answer has just been. Can we assume you are going to be doing some further work on this in the case of EU migrants and the effect they have?
James Brokenshire
That is obviously something that the Migration Advisory Committee and others across Government will no doubt be keeping an eye on given that this is a recently new phenomenon, and given the rise that we have seen over the course of the last year.
Dr Huppert
A very quick question for Sarah Rapson about backlogs again, and particularly for asylum applications. Because we made a previous recommendation that the Government accepted that 90% should have an initial decision within six months. The number who do not has been growing every single quarter. The last quarter we have available is 36% of cases waited more than six months for an initial decision. What is happening about that backlog?