╨╧рб▒с>■  ■   √№¤■                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 ье┴s ┐є╡jbjb└ └ Ъжкkкkє▒      ]вввввввттттт ю╝т_)pцццццццц))))))),╧*Ї├,вJ)вцццццJ)V(ввцццV(V(V(ц·вцвц)╢╠ввввц)V(╞V()вв)к<=4У║ттрv)Asylum and Immigration removals: Beverley Hughes Tuesday 4th March 2003 __________ Members present: Chris Mullin, in the Chair Mr David Cameron Mr James Clappison Mrs Janet Dean Bridget Prentice Mr Gwyn Prosser Bob Russell Miss Ann Widdecombe David Winnick __________ Memorandum submitted by the Home Office Examination of Witnesses BEVERLEY HUGHES, a Member of the House, Minister of State for Citizenship, Immigration and Community Cohesion; MR BILL JEFFREY, Director General of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate; and MS ANGELA RAMLAGAN-SINGH, Immigration Service, Home Office, examined. Chairman 574. Ms Hughes, Ms Ramlagan-Singh and Mr Jeffrey, welcome. This is the final session of our short inquiry into removals, though we will be looking later at other aspects of asylum policy so we expect to see you again before too long. (Beverley Hughes) It will be my pleasure, Chairman. 575. Would you like, first, to introduce your colleagues? (Beverley Hughes) Yes. I have with me Mr Bill Jeffrey, the Director General, and Angela Ramlagan-Singh, who is the head of the Removals Delivery Unit. 576. We met Ms Singh, I think, and Mr Jeffrey's name I recognise from responses to lots of letters sent out by my constituency office. Mr Prosser is going to start the ball rolling. (Beverley Hughes) Could I make a few opening remarks, please, Chairman? 577. Yes, but I hope you are not going to read out a page of double-spaced typing? (Beverley Hughes) No, but I do want a couple of minutes, if I may, to put into context the important subject you are talking about today, because removals are important but I think it is important too, as we are increasingly trying to do in the Home Office, to see removals as an integral part of the whole end-to-end asylum process, and to put it in the context of our overall objective about managing migration, welcoming people to this country, finding new ways for them to contribute to our economy, but at the same time to bear down on those people who do not have the right to be here, who do not qualify, and who are abusing some of the processes including the asylum process. 578. We are all agreed about that but how much have you got there? (Beverley Hughes) What I would simply like to say is we have had a week in which we have seen a record intake on asylum published last week for 2002, although the indications in those figures are that, in the last two months of the year, the measures that we have been instituting including the Royal Assent on the Act together with the closure of Sangatte, the measures that the Home Secretary instituted with the French government - measures that are, at the moment, as we speak before the court on support - and introducing visas, all of those together we think cautiously are having an impact on intake, and I think that is one of the main points I would make. Removals are very important and as you know remain a target for us, but equally if not more important is the focus at the front end of the process in terms of reducing the numbers overall. As you obviously want me to be very brief, I will stop there! 579. You have it. On the questions of the front end, which we all understand is important, that is what we are going to address in our next inquiry but today we are doing removals. (Beverley Hughes) That is fine. Mr Prosser 580. Good morning, Minister. I would like to start by asking you some questions about the statistics and the targets. Can you tell us what estimates you make of the number of failed asylum seekers who remain in the country each year? (Beverley Hughes) I think the members of the Committee are already aware that this is an extremely difficult figure to estimate, for all kinds of obvious reasons. We do not have an embarkation check in this country any longer - that was abandoned some ten years ago - although as the Home Secretary made clear when he was here in January it is something we are prepared to examine. People leave voluntarily and we do not have, therefore, a record of those. Some people make multiple applications and we try to read those out of the system. We do not count numbers not removed. We can do the arithmetic but reaching what we could regard as a valid and reliable estimate of the number of failed asylum seekers in the country at any one time is extremely difficult. Having said that, we have got our statistical and research department looking now at a methodology to see if they can come up with something that could come closer to a reliable and accurate estimate, and that work is still continuing. 581. Another complication according to the Immigration Advisory Service is that some people are counted twice because their marital status, for instance, might have changed during their stay. Is that something else you look at? (Beverley Hughes) I do not think it is so much that people are counted twice, although certainly if they try to use a number of routes that might be possible. Certainly as far as asylum goes, we are aware that some people try and make multiple applications under different identities, both coming into the country having claimed elsewhere but also within country. We now have the ARC, the fingerprinting identity card for asylum seekers, which we expect to have issued not only now to all incoming applicants but also to have got through the existing population of asylum seekers who are still in the process by March/April this year, and that is proving very useful in tracking down those multiple applications. We also have Eurodac on-line from the beginning of this year, the European wide pooling of fingerprinting data of new asylum seekers, so we can cross-check people who have claimed claiming not just in the United Kingdom but elsewhere in Europe. 582. What about those asylum seekers who have failed in their claim and come to the end of the legal process, but who are still not removed for various reasons? Are you in a position to tell us by what proportion each section of those are not removed? For instance, an obvious example would be those who have not got proper documentation or who have no safe country to return to. Do you have that to hand? (Beverley Hughes) We do not have figures breaking down the groups in the way that you have asked. One of the big problems that we are trying to address is the way in which information has traditionally been collected in relation to number of claims, number of refusals and, then, number of removals, and I think the Committee itself may have come up against the problem that we have not yet got, although we are now trying to put this in place, a method of relating those populations in a statistical way. In other words, moving towards a cohort-based mechanism of collating the statistics so that we can say for any one intake in any one year, not just in that year how many people we happen to remove who might have come in the year before or the year before that but of that cohort of people who claimed asylum in that period of time how many have been refused and how many have been removed. We have not yet got to a point where we can present the figures on that cohort basis but it seems to me absolutely essential that we do that, so our performance management unit is rapidly working to see if we can do that. It is very complicated because obviously the phases in that process involve appeals which is LCD and the Appellate Authority so bringing the information together on a cohort basis is complicated, but as I say it seems to me profoundly important that we can report on a cohort basis how many people have given leave, been refused and removed. (Mr Jeffrey) If I may add to that, part of this is about computerisation and after the difficulties of a few years ago we have been building up a casework database and are in the process of enhancing it now. With better computer support it ought to be possible for us to derive the sort of information that the Minister is talking about and to tag people more consistently from the beginning of the process through to the end. 583. A lot of the arguments about the whole issue of immigration and asylum are related to the numbers and figures, and you have told us there is a lot of work going on in a number of areas to get more accurate and realistic figures. When can we expect to see that work complete and figures published? (Beverley Hughes) I think we have improved the reporting over the last period of time. We now include dependants for instance. People get clear pictures, as we saw last Friday, of the statistics as far as they have historically been collated, but in terms of moving towards a cohort-based approach and having that as supplementary information I am not sure but I would hope within the next six months or so we will be in a position where we can start producing the figures. 584. You mentioned in earlier answers that the process of counting people in and counting people out was abandoned some time ago. Is it not the case that the only way we will get real answers to these number questions is to reinstate a system of counting non EEA visitors in and out? Have you considered that and looked at it? (Beverley Hughes) It is under consideration at the moment. Some work has been done on what it will cost to reinstate an embarkation check. There are technical issues around that too: I have to stress that no decision has been taken but as I said, following the Home Secretary's remarks at the Committee in January when he was asked about that, he has gone on to ask for some work to be done to scope what that would involve. 585. I am moving now to the question of targets. You remember the discussions about targets of 30,000 removals a year which in the event turned out to be something like a third of that and now we are talking about targets of 13,000 a year, and very recently the Prime Minister has claimed a target of halving the number of incoming asylum seekers. Can you enlarge on those targets and in terms of the Prime Minister's pledge, when he said he expected the number of incoming asylum applicants to halve, what was he talking about? Half of what? (Beverley Hughes) The benchmark for that is the monthly figure immediately prior to the implementation date, the Royal Assent date, on the Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act, so the benchmark is the figure for October 2002. We have always said that should be benchmark because we do believe, although the process of looking at what needs to be done further is continuing, that the measures included in the Act and the other measures that have come on-line since then including the work with France will have an impact, and therefore we believe that the right benchmark is the period of time immediately before Royal Assent of the Act, and the figures for that month on intake as you know were 8,900 applications. 586. Finally, how confident are you that that target will be met? (Beverley Hughes) As the Home Secretary said on Friday clearly you cannot be one hundred per cent certain. These are aspects of human behaviour and human decision-making that are influenced by those individuals but also by huge global and international events and we just have to put that qualification, but in terms of where we are and in terms of the measures that we have brought on-line and the further thinking that is going on in case it is necessary to bring on some additional measures, I am really confident that we can get to that figure. There is a real drive to do so but, as I say, we are in an international context with this issue and there may be unforeseen effects that we have then to take account of. 587. Am I allowed to ask if your officials share that confidence? (Beverley Hughes) Certainly! (Mr Jeffrey) Yes. I think the Minister is exactly right - this is a very-difficult-to-predict set of circumstances. It is affected by what happens elsewhere in the world and the places to which that gives rise but if one takes something like a steady state, we believe that the measures we have put in place and are putting in place, particularly at the channel ports, have the capacity to reduce the intake quite substantially. David Winnick 588. Bearing in mind, Minister, what you have just said, that events abroad could well change the situation, is it really sensible to set targets? (Beverley Hughes) I think it is sensible to have aspirations that drive performance and it is reasonable to have some quantification. I take the view that targets themselves do provide a goal for people which helps to shape decision-making and practice and performance as people try to meet that target. I think when targets become ends in themselves then perhaps, if this is what you are suggesting, they can be counter-productive and they also become something that people beat you with, but even so - and I am not suggesting this is the case in this particular instance - if you have an ambitious target and get most of the way towards that, even if you do not meet it, you are probably doing a lot better than if you did not have a target at all and your performance was not being driven by trying really hard to reach a goal. So I think they serve a purpose: they are a means to an end, but they are not ever a final end in themselves, are they? 589. Many of us would not question good intentions - there may be some on the political scene for political reasons but I for one would not question good intentions - but bearing in mind how the Home Office tripped itself up over the original target to remove 30,000 failed asylum seekers a year, or 2,500 a month which the Home Secretary said that was very overambitious, is there not a lesson to be learned from raising expectations, Minister, when in fact in practice, and for the reasons you have explained, there is a good likelihood that that target will simply not be reached? Has the lesson been learnt from that one? (Beverley Hughes) There is a lesson in there in that you need to try and apply as much science and experience in terms of setting the target, but I do not think that takes away from the usefulness of having targets themselves. I do believe they play an important part in driving up performance. Yes, you need to make them realistic but that is a fine balance, is it not? Anyone could set a target that is easily achievable but what would you achieve by that? How much performance would you improve? You have to try, and it is not an exact science, to pitch your target in a way that does extend your performance and take you further towards some important objectives but is not so unrealistic that you are bound not to meet it. 590. So would we be right to come to the conclusion that the Prime Minister has set a target which has already been mentioned - that numbers should be halved by September of this year - and that the Prime Minister has instructed the Home Office, that is the Home Secretary and yourself as the Minister directly responsible, to meet that target? (Beverley Hughes) No, that would not be right. There are continuing discussions and meetings with the Prime Minister and myself and the Home Secretary about -- 591. But he has set the target, has he not? (Beverley Hughes) What I am saying to you is that the impact of the measures we are bringing on-line has been the subject of on-going and regular discussion between us and that the kind of figures that the Prime Minister gave out publicly had been discussed, so what you are saying, Mr Winnick, is not true. You might like to believe that and contribute to the attempts of others to say there is a wedge there but there is not. We are all working in the same direction. 592. I think the Prime Minister is looking over your shoulders, is he not? (Beverley Hughes) No. He is working alongside the Home Secretary in the way he has done with other Cabinet secretaries because this is a very important issue and we recognise it is very important to the people of this country for all kinds of reasons - not least community relations in this country - and therefore he is bringing his interest alongside the drive of the Home Secretaries to work together. It is corporate government. Mr Clappison 593. Can I apologise to the Minister and to the Committee for my late arrival, and do stop me if I am asking you for a figure which you have already given but I have been told you have not given this yet. Before we come on to the new targets on reducing applications can I come back to the old targets on removals, and the number of people who are staying in this country as failed asylum seekers? I think you said in your evidence that it is difficult for you to know how many people have left voluntarily but, putting that to one side, have you a figure for the number of people in this country whose applications have been determined in the last five years and whose applications have failed and who have exhausted their appeals process who are simply remaining in the country unless they have voluntarily departed? Presumably you must have a figure for that. (Beverley Hughes) We probably could work a figure out for that particular statistic but I have not got that with me today for the last five years. We will certainly provide the Committee with that before you conclude. 594. If I were to say to you that my guess would be that it would run into several hundred thousands, would you agree with that? (Beverley Hughes) I do not think that would be right. There have been various estimates over different periods of time. In fact, we discussed with Mr Cameron when we were last here a figure which I think we thought probably was of, as far as we can say, a reasonable order. There have been other figures produced by Migration Watch UK and others which we would wholly dispute but I must insist that I do not think anybody has come up with a figure of several hundreds of thousands. Mr Clappison: If you would like to give us another figure I would be pleased to receive it. If I can tell you precisely what I am asking for, it is the number of people whose cases have been dealt with in the last five years which have been determined who have failed in their initial determination, whose appeals have failed, and who have no reason to stay in the country, and are presumed to be here unless they have voluntarily left. Chairman: Why only the last five years? Mr Clappison 595. Well, it is the last five years the Minister and the Government have had responsibility for. If she wants to take it back any further she can do but I am interested in the last five years because this is the length of time that the Government has been responsible for its present policies. (Beverley Hughes) I have certainly got figures here for the number of people who applied in any one year and the number of decisions and the number of refusals, so if you will let us add them up for the last five years, I will get my officials to do that. (Mr Jeffrey) Adding to that, we can certainly derive a figure for the numbers refused, taking account of the success rate on appeal as well. The difficulty is that, for the reasons the Minister was giving earlier in the session, it would not then necessarily give you an estimate of the removable pool because there are other factors including the fact that some people do just leave. 596. Yes. It is taking that into account although some people would say that is fairly unlikely but it is a possibility, given that people have gone to such lengths to come here. If we could have that figure that would be very useful. (Beverley Hughes) Yes. Perhaps we can provide that to you afterwards? Mr Clappison: Yes. Mr Cameron 597. Just on one point that came out of Mr Winnick's questions to you, did you know in advance that the Prime Minister was going to make that promise about halving the number of asylum seekers by September? (Beverley Hughes) We knew the Prime Minister was doing two important interviews in that day -- 598. We all knew that but did you know he was going to make a promise? (Beverley Hughes) It was no surprise because those were the figures we had discussed. The Prime Minister was doing two interviews which involved questions and answers from members of the public as well as Jeremy Paxman. We knew it would cover a wide range of issues. We did not know necessarily asylum would come up but it was pretty predictable, and what the Prime Minister said at that interview on that particular issue was no surprise because it simply rehearsed discussions we had had with the Prime Minister and are continuing to have on a regular basis. 599. But this is what defies all belief: had you fixed this baseline of October before he gave that interview? (Beverley Hughes) Yes. We have always said -- 600. In which case, if you knew the baseline, you knew he was going to say "I am going to cut the asylum seekers in half", otherwise why would you set a baseline? (Beverley Hughes) We are playing with words here. 601. I am not. (Beverley Hughes) We had set ourselves, in discussions about how we internally would monitor the impact of the measures in the Bill and the other measures that we have brought on-line since, what we would regard as an indication of success and what we would be looking for. Those discussions had taken place. 602. So why did the Prime Minister not talk about an October baseline? If you say you are going to cut something in half by a date, September, is it not most likely you are either talking about cutting it in half compared with the time you make the promise, or compared with the previous September? Why did the Prime Minister not mention October? (Beverley Hughes) He was not asked. If you saw that interview, it was a wide-ranging one; Jeremy Paxman at that point was asking the questions; it simply did not come up but we have always said that the benchmark will be the time immediately before we have got the powers through Royal Assent to bring in the measures we have legislated for. 603. Is it then just coincidence that October happens to be by quite a long way the highest month of asylum applications in 2002? 8,900 compared with a thousand fewer the month before? (Beverley Hughes) No. It could have worked either way. The principle was that we had legislated because although the figures came down slightly in 2001 we are looking very closely, monitoring, and using our intelligence systems all the time to look at trends and we knew the trends were going to go up. That is why we took what some people regard as very tough measures in that legislation and fought very hard for them, and therefore - 604. But nevertheless, if you had to pick one month in 2002 that would be the easiest to halve, it would be October. (Beverley Hughes) -- And therefore it seems right and reasonable that the immediate benchmark, however that had panned out, was the period of time immediately before we had the power to implement the measures that we had provided for in legislation. That was the principle and there was no deviation from that. 605. But would you confirm that even if you cut in half by September that would still be 4,500 a month, and if you analyse that that would be well over 50,000 a year which is about 10,000 more than five years ago? (Beverley Hughes) As the Prime Minister went on to say before he concluded that piece of the interview, we go on from there. That is not an end target - it is a position in time we want to get to - and we will go on from there. 606. It is a strange way of setting targets, but thank you. (Beverley Hughes) Not at all. Miss Widdecombe 607. Minister, you say that the beginning of this period of measurement is last October and the end of it is September, therefore we are halfway through. What is the progress? (Beverley Hughes) I cannot give you figures for January and February because they have to be confirmed statistically and they will be produced, as you know, for January, February and March at the end of May. What I can say is that, apart from an increase immediately prior to the implementation of the Section 55 provisions where we saw in that first week in January an increase, for November and December as revealed by the Q4 figures on Friday the trend downwards has continued. 608. I would find it very surprising if, as a Minister with a target to be reached in a few months time and half the year already elapsed, even if you have not got publishable figures, you were not getting monthly information. What is that information showing you? (Beverley Hughes) I am getting weekly information. 609. What is that showing you? (Beverley Hughes) It is showing me that the trend for November and December of a downward pressure on the numbers of people claiming asylum is continuing, and I cannot give the Committee any firmer figures than that because of the way we publish those figures and give them to Parliament after they have been statistically verified. 610. So what you are telling the Committee is that currently there is a downward trend, although you cannot give us the detail? (Beverley Hughes) I have the figures: I am not able to give them to the Committee because of the way in which we publish the figures to Parliament. 611. I appreciate the fact you cannot give the figures to the Committee. What I am trying to get you to tell me, or you can tell me the opposite if you want to, is whether there is in your view a quite clear downward trend that gives you confidence? (Beverley Hughes) The downward trend for November and December has continued into January and February. 612. You mean it has gone on going down? (Beverley Hughes) It has gone on going down and, as I said earlier, this is a phenomenon that is acutely sensitive to changes that are external to us. We can pull all the levers that we are able to internally and domestically and that is what we are doing, but the figures can change quite quickly in relation to events outside so I am only cautiously encouraged. In a steady state position, without any dramatic events or other factors that we cannot control impinging on the flow, then the evidence so far suggests that what we have done so far is having a significant impact and I would expect that, all other things being equal, to continue. (Mr Jeffrey) Adding to that, the one exception is the point the Minister referred to which is that in the early days of January, before we introduced the provisions denying asylum support to those who did not claim as early as they could, there was quite an increase in the number of applications. For several days before these provisions came in on 8 January, but apart from that the position is as the Minister claims. 613. Can I ask you some further questions about this target? I imagine that one of the factors that will have been taken into account in setting it is what happened after the introduction of the 1996 Act when we also denied assistance to those who applied in-country rather than at port, and there was an extremely dramatic drop of about 40 per cent, which was then reversed not only by the incoming government but as a result of a court ruling. You have recently had an adverse court ruling. Have you made any assessment of the impact that that will have on this target which you have set? (Beverley Hughes) Well, it will have an impact. If the Court of Appeal in its decision confirms the initial decision in the High Court then clearly it will have an impact and it depends how we respond to that. We will have to wait and see the outcome of the Court of Appeal process but certainly we are considering the position as to what we might do if the Court of Appeal does confirm. I have to say that I am not convinced at this stage that the Court of Appeal will confirm the High Court's decision at all, but this is their second day of deliberation and we have to wait at this point and see what the decision is. (Mr Jeffrey) The other point to make is this is not a strategy with a single measure; there is more to it than the restriction on asylum support. In terms of the impact on the intake of asylum seekers, we are probably looking for more of an impact from the steps that have been taken at channel ports to improve our performance in detecting people before they were sent off to each country. 614. If I could just go to your 30,000 removals, your other target, and just probe a little how on earth that target was arrived at, if you are going to set a target for removals - and I take the point about it being necessary to be ambitious and to have a target that stretched people even if you know you might not quite get there, that is fine - but if you are setting a target as considerable as 30,000 removals from the base that you were coming from, you would know at the time that you set and published that target and said to the British public, "This is a serious government target", that there were all sorts of factors including adequacy of detention space, for example, that would determine the success or the failure of that target. What I would like to know is this: I assume the 30,000 was a reasonably scientific target and not just plucked out of the air so on what did you base it? How did you arrive at the figure of 30,000? So far I have asked this question in a different number of ways and a large number of times, and nobody has been able to tell me where this 30,000 came from. (Beverley Hughes) I am not sure, Chair, whether I can be of any more help than others have been so far. 615. You surprise me, Minister! (Beverley Hughes) Unfortunately neither the Director General nor I were party to that decision and I can only say, insofar as I am able to look back, that I think ministers at the time genuinely felt on the basis of where they were then that the key - and it is the key but I think we now feel it is not the only key - was to remove more people, and that all the effort and energy resources needed to be applied to that, and having looked at the figures removed previously they wanted to see a real step change in the number of people demonstrably being removed, and set a target that was two or three times more than what had been achieved hitherto in an attempt to get that step change, to get that drive - and it was not achievable, as the Home Secretary said when he last appeared here in January. 616. I do not want to delay the Committee much longer on this but I do have to probe you just a little. You said that you were not a party to the original decision and nor is your current Director General. That is fine but it was your administration therefore you have full access to all the records; there is also presumably some corporate memory within the immigration service who will have been advising your predecessors when they were setting that target; there will have been I assume - perhaps falsely - a fully worked out rationale in some submission that resulted in that target, and all I want to know is, apart from telling me that somebody sat there and said, "Let us multiply the present achievement by four quite regardless of whether or not we have the space and the officials and the capacity and the ability", how you got to that target? I suspect I shall not get much further enlightenment but I do not buy the argument that because you did not set it you do not know how it was set when it was done by your administration? (Beverley Hughes) The fact is that the current Home Secretary, as soon as he became Home Secretary, looked again at that target and made it clear I think in June 2001 shortly after he had been appointed that in his view this target was not achievable and needed to be re-examined, which is what he did. We have moved on from there. That was getting on for two years ago and I do not feel it is productive to delve into this issue any further or, in fact, for me to wade through submissions that must have been put up to previous ministers from three or four years ago to understand how they got to a figure which the current Home Secretary, openly and honestly, said to Parliament almost two years ago was not achievable. So Miss Widdecombe is right - I cannot give her the information because I have not gone back myself to find that submission, whatever it was, from three or four years ago to understand the mathematics or the assessments that produced 3,000. Chairman: I think Miss Widdecombe's question is whose idea was this target and where did it come from? Miss Widdecombe: My question is how on earth this target was arrived at. Somebody must know that. Chairman 617. Rather than get bogged down with this, can I suggest you send us a note on this subject? (Beverley Hughes) We will. Mr Clappison 618. Can I take issue with you when you say that you are not responsible for what previous ministers have said -- (Beverley Hughes) I did not say that, and I would not say that. Chairman: I did not hear Ms Hughes say that. Mr Clappison 619. Can I remind you of the words of the then Home Secretary to the special Select Committee on the previous Asylum Act when he said that he had no more important responsibility for getting the asylum system right in 1999, and he was not saying that future ministers would not be judged on what was achieved in the interim; he was saying there was no more important responsibility. So you do accept responsibility for everything that has happened over the last five years? (Beverley Hughes) Yes, and nothing I said contradicted that, and I do very much take issue in fact with the way you contorted my words. I simply said that neither the Director General nor myself, and I was appointed last year and the Director General more recently, were there at the time when the considerations about arriving at that figure took place, and we have not spent our time in the last few months since our appointment delving back into that kind of detail which now is somewhat out of date. That is not the same as saying that I do not take responsibility for what my administration ministers have done. Mr Clappison: And there are lessons to be learned. Miss Widdecombe 620. But government is accountable, you would agree? (Beverley Hughes) Yes. Miss Widdecombe: And therefore, if you are asked how and why you arrived at something, you as a government are accountable, but thank you. Chairman: I think we have done that subject to death, so let us move on. Mrs Dean? Mrs Dean 621. Can I return to the issue of withdrawal of support for in-country asylum applicants. What is your response to claims that this is resulting in destitution? (Beverley Hughes) The intention behind that measure is not to cause destitution but it is trying to change people's behaviour. Our monitoring for some time has suggested, if you look at the way in which people claim asylum, where they claim asylum I think well over 60 per cent of claims are not at port, they are in-country, and it is certainly the view from many of our caseworkers and people making the decisions, on the basis of their interviews, that many people claiming asylum have been in-country for some time and are therefore supporting themselves or being supported, and we believe that it is right to expect people, if they are fleeing persecution, to want to claim asylum at the earliest opportunity and that largely will be the port when you enter a country that you regard as safe which is going hopefully to provide you with some refuge. So whilst I accept that this is a tough measure I do not accept that its intention is to make people destitute, or necessarily whether it will make people destitute, but it is about changing behaviour and making sure that people understand that the asylum system is for people fleeing persecution and not for people seeking support to stay here for some other reason. 622. I can well understand that if people have been here several weeks or months they have obviously been able to support themselves in that time. What I am concerned about is those who apply a day or two after having arrived here. Are you prepared to reconsider how we deal with those? (Beverley Hughes) If somebody applies a day or two after and can give the caseworker information that supports a credible reason as to why that happened, preferably but not necessarily with some verifiable information as to how and when they came into the country to confirm the day or zone, then they will be given support and that is within the guidance to the caseworkers, but if people cannot give that credible story, and the caseworkers believe on the basis of the screening that their story is not credible, not true, and they probably are someone who has been here longer than that, then they will be denied support. (Mr Jeffrey) To an extent this is a matter which is coming full course because the provision in Section 55 does have an exception where the result of withdrawing support would be inconsistent with that of the European Convention, and the High Court has in the judgment that is currently being contested in the Court of Appeal interpreted that quite widely. I would, however, confirm what the Minister says about the impression which our staff who are administering this in the few weeks since it has been introduced have which is that it would not be fair to say that the consequence is widespread destitution. Chairman 623. Before you move off that, I do not know if it is widespread but there is no doubt that some have been rendered destitute by this. Is that not true? (Mr Jeffrey) I do not think we could confirm that but I could certainly say that the staff I have spoken to who are conducting the interviews in private, for example, do not have the impression that this is a widespread issue. 624. Discard the word "widespread" - no one is alleging that - and address the point I am making which is that some people have been rendered destitute by this, have they not? We have all heard interviews of people appearing to be destitute on the radio. (Mr Jeffrey) As I say, I do not know if one can confirm that for sure. I was simply confirming what the Minister said which is that the impression of our staff is that this is not a widespread issue. (Beverley Hughes) We have heard those interviews but what we do not know, Chair, is how true those claims are. Certainly as Bill Jeffrey has said, from the caseworkers themselves and from the police with whom we consulted before the introduction of the measure and an established means of communication whereby we can get early notification if there are significant problems from people arising from being on the streets, from both of those sources the picture is that this has not led certainly to a problem of any significance. If you are saying to me that there might be one person who was made destitute I cannot say that that is not true, but what I can say is that there is a view amongst the caseworkers, and I cannot go too far along this line because some of these cases are before the courts at the moment, which is different, though, in terms of the stories those people came forward with, and the length of time they were in the country and therefore there was an impact on the decision to refuse; the caseworkers' view was different from that which was being put by the people themselves. 625. But I just want to check that there is sufficient discretion built into the rules for when one of these cases does arise for benefit to be granted? (Beverley Hughes) The law is clear in that Home Secretary support will not be given unless somebody has claimed as reasonably as practically possible, but then it is the decision of the caseworker based on the screening interview and based on the credibility and the verifiability of the person's account as to whether that test is met. So in that sense it is discretion in the sense that there is a professional judgment there and this is how the system operates on the part of the caseworker, assessing the story and the account that the immigrant, the claimant, gives us. 626. But if you find someone who has slipped through the system for whatever reason, is the system sufficiently flexible for a decision against a warning benefit to be reversed, or is it set in stone from the moment it is made? (Beverley Hughes) Certain categories of people are provided for and will get support - families with children under 18, people with special needs through the local authorities. In relation to other people, if a decision is made to deny them support there is no appeal on this process provided for, and therefore I have to say probably in answer to your question -- 627. So the answer is no? (Beverley Hughes) There might be a mechanism for somebody to come back through the system but there is not an automatic route for that to happen. (Mr Jeffrey) The answer is if circumstances have changed then it is open to us to take a different view but against the criterion in the legislation, and unless someone has already observed the legislation it does not leave the Secretary of State a great deal of discretion. Mrs Dean 628. Can I turn to country information? The information collated by the Home Office on the state of countries from which asylum seekers have come feeds into the decision-making process. How confident are you in the accuracy of that information? (Beverley Hughes) We do get very positive affirmation of the quality of that information from a number of commentators. As you know, I get many letters from MPs about particular cases - often asking me not to remove people, as it happens - and in some of those instances where I read the case and I have concerns I have asked to see the country information for a number of countries, and when I first saw it I will say to you I was very impressed. I admit that in a sense I come to this area as a lay person, but I had a volume of material that was very detailed and that was drawn from a wide array of international sources. It was not opinion given to me by the officials: it was a collation of independent and international-sourced information. So when I first saw such a pack of information on one particular country, I was personally impressed by its thoroughness and its detail. Based on my own personal experience and the feedback I get, therefore, I do accept that our system of collating that information is a good one, and it is information that I am told other countries abroad draw on because of its comprehensiveness. 629. It has been suggested that a body outside government should be involved in providing that information. Do you believe that there is any argument for that to be done? (Beverley Hughes) There certainly is an argument and we had that debate during the course of the passage of the Bill. What we thought was a better way forward, certainly in the first instance, was to establish an advisory panel of experts and we are in the process of doing that, and underneath that is a smaller and more focused consultation group who will go into the detail very thoroughly and produce advice for ministers as to the adequacy and the comprehensiveness of the in-country information, and look particularly at changes, at the situation in the countries, and advise us as to how we needed to increase, perhaps, the number of occasions where in-country information is updated and so on. So that is the arrangement we are setting in place which will rejoin the passage of the Bill. Certainly the issue is not set in tablets of stone but we would rather move in that direction and see how that works because of the fact that, as I say, the in-country information that we use that the unit compiles is not essentially opinion by our officials to caseworkers or to ministers: it is a collation of independently-sourced information anyway. 630. How soon would that be implemented? (Beverley Hughes) We hope that that panel will be up and running later this year. 631. Can I turn now to non-suspensive appeals - a peculiar term but there we are. On what criteria will a claim for asylum be certified as "clearly unfounded"? (Beverley Hughes) At the moment you know that we included in the legislation a list of ten countries and in relation to applications in those countries there is a presumption that that case will be certified in that way and we are proposing to add another seven countries to that list. In terms of going further and looking at criteria for other cases that are not country specific and how the definition of "clearly unfounded" should be made and applied, we are still working through that because I think that is a much more difficult process to embark on. There is a clarity that I think has been accepted by the courts about the safe countries, and we did a lot of work with the judges establishing the judicial systems that would back that up. In relation to unfounded cases that are not country specific we would want to proceed very cautiously, and we would want to try and establish some case law on the basis of particular cases that we would have looked through and work our way through that in a gradual way, because the system with the safe countries has been very effective and I think that is because of the clarity and because of the preparation we were able to do with the administrative court. All of those issues are more difficult with a more generic "clearly unfounded" category, and so I think we have to proceed very carefully on that. 632. What other grounds are you considering? (Beverley Hughes) I think in general what we mean by a "clearly unfounded" case is a case that on the face of the facts has no merit but clearly the kind of different variables that could come together in a particular case, the kind of factors that you would be looking for, that would add up to a defendable decision that a case was "clearly unfounded" are many and varied, and I am saying to you really that I am not in a position today to delineate any of those factors for you except to say that we would want to proceed very cautiously indeed and only move from obviously unfounded cases and build up the case law from that point. (Mr Jeffrey) I do not have anything very significant to add. Certainly at one extreme there are cases which anyone would recognise as "clearly unfounded". It is not completely unknown for people to say they are claiming asylum because they want a house, for example, but if one were to move beyond the safe boundaries we have so far been operating on it will be necessary because we intend to do that to set out quite clearly what constitutes a "clearly unfounded" case. 633. Is not the introduction of non-suspensive appeals denying people the right of appeal in practice? (Beverley Hughes) No, I do not think so. Certainly there are appeals conducted out of country. People who are denied visas, for example, have to conduct their appeal from where they are which is abroad, and certainly many of the legal representatives are geared up to do that, to continue appeals when people have been removed from a country, and I think we are dealing with cases here where, because people have come from a country that we deem to be safe, that is a reasonable thing to do, and I think it is crucial in relation to this group of cases that early removal, which is what the Committee is talking about, is part of the process. Bob Russell 634. Minister, you made reference to ten safe countries in Europe. Would you accept that right across Europe the Roma community do not consider that they are safe; they are not protected by the state authorities; and they are suffering from neo fascist gangs and skinheads. In those circumstances would you not accept that the Roma community should not regard those countries as being safe for them? (Beverley Hughes) The definition of "safe" is partly about the extent to which people might be subjected to activities which clearly threaten them but it is also about the mechanisms for policing and criminal justice and the recognition of human rights that exist in a particular country as well. Nobody, even people in this country or in western European countries, can be absolutely one hundred per cent protected from criminality but the question is whether or not those countries provide or can provide sufficient protection and sufficient redress if people are subjected to criminality. In all of the ten countries that we put on the face of the Bill and in the seven that we proposed in the Act, we believe - and certainly as far as the ten that was endorsed in the European Union more generally - that those countries do have a level of infrastructure around policing and criminal justice to be able to meet that test. 635. Would you not accept then that the Roma community, which was persecuted by the Nazis, survived under 50 years of Communism, now find themselves threatened by the democratic structures that you have just described; and that is particularly the case in the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic? (Beverley Hughes) No, I do not. I certainly acknowledge the historic persecution in parts of Europe for large groups of Roma people, but you have to ask the question as to whether the situation now is one that would engage the test in the Vienna Convention and I do not think it does. I really do not think it does. The other question I think you need to ask yourself is: is it a satisfactory solution to any remaining problems falling short of persecution that perhaps numbers of Roma people might be subject to criminality, intimidation; is it a satisfactory solution to say that all of those people then can find a safe haven in Western Europe rather than their own countries continuing to work, as they are in the Czech Republic, in Poland, to consolidate the progress they have already made in protecting certain groups, including the Roma people, from discrimination, and marshalling their own infrastructure, strengthening their own infrastructure, to make sure that protection is delivered in practice? Surely it is the latter. That is the only sustainable solution to those kinds of issues which do not engage the Convention but, nonetheless, maybe issues that those countries, yes, continue to need to address. That does not mean that that satisfies the criteria for people to come here and claim asylum under the Convention. 636. Your confidence will not be shared by the Roma community. Finally, Minister, people already in this country, whose home countries will be joining the European Union in the not too distant future, why deport those people from settled roots in the UK when in a matter of a year or so they will have the legal right to come here anyway? (Beverley Hughes) Many of those people do not have settled roots in the UK. They might have been here for two or three years but not for longer periods of time, and some much shorter periods of time. In fact it was only last summer when we were getting peak numbers of people from Poland and the Czech Republic coming through the port. I actually went to the port and witnessed what were then significant numbers of people coming from the Czech Republic on coaches at the immigration desk claiming asylum. The distinction is, yes, when those countries join the European Union we have said that from the point of accession that people's rights to come will be operationalised - provided they can support themselves, and provided they have work then they can come. That is completely different than coming in claiming asylum, getting that support, trammelling up the whole system in a period of assessing that claim, going through an appeal, and the expense of removal. That is completely different. We have to continue to deal with claims for asylum with people from accession countries in that way, in order to make the progress I outlined at the beginning. 637. Right to midnight on the last day? (Beverley Hughes) Yes. (Mr Jeffrey) Could I just add a point about the legislation because I think it is worth bearing in mind that what the legislation does is to create a presumption that people from these countries will not have a well founded claim for asylum. That is a presumption they can displace. In individual cases it is certainly not the case that we are ignoring what they are saying to us. David Winnick 638. I want to return for a moment to the questions of destitution put to you by the Chairman. We all know from our postbag on the doorstep and in the media that asylum seekers are not the most popular group of people in the country at the moment; but is it really a satisfactory state of affairs where people, in fact, could be denied all benefits and, unless they have friends or resort to criminal action, would find themselves in a position where they were virtually starving? (Beverley Hughes) I think I have covered that point. There is provision in the legislation for the most vulnerable groups. The legislation itself does not remove any obligations if the situation of a person lays down the test of Article 3 of ECHR, in which instance local authorities would still be able to provide some support. 639. In what way. If someone is denied benefit do they go to the local authority? Who would provide that, the Social Services Department? (Beverley Hughes) It is possible under the legislation for the local authority to provide residual support, if the situation is such that it could be established that the threshold in Article 3, which is a high threshold, would be engaged. 640. There is bound to be unease, certainly amongst Labour Members if not elsewhere in the House, that there is a sort of inflexibility about this. One would hope that it will be possible for the matter to be looked at again. (Beverley Hughes) Let me say again, that somebody who claims at the port will get support automatically. Somebody who claims in-country and can give an account that verifies that they have only a very recently come in will also get support. What the law does is to create a presumption that people will not get support unless they can do that. There comes a point at which I think people's decisions and their behaviour, often on the basis of advice from the criminals that bring them in here, mean they have to take the consequences of those decisions. 641. If they have no case to stay in the United Kingdom the responsibility then comes back to the Home Office that they should be removed, not denied all benefits and be in a position where they have no means of support whatsoever because the Home Office have not been efficient enough to take action for them to be removed? (Beverley Hughes) If people have been in the country for some time on some other basis, or perhaps illegally, and then try to use the asylum system as a means of prolonging their stay and getting support at the same time, it seems to me reasonable that we say to people, "We are bound internationally to assess that claim, however unfounded we might think it is, but it is not reasonable that we pay to support you while that claim is processed, given that we believe that you have already been here for some time, presumably with some means of support". Mr Cameron 642. The Immigration Law Practitioners' Association in their evidence brought to us a particular group of people they thought had a particular problem, which is those that may be left without any status at all, in particular the Iraqi Kurds, where they may have had their asylum claims refused but they cannot return to Iraq but they are not being given exceptional leave to remain. Is that the situation? (Beverley Hughes) Certainly it will be the case with some people in that group, that they are not given exceptional leave to remain, and others have been; it depends on their own individual circumstances and the case that they have presented. 643. Is there not a danger that those who are left without any status, so they have just had their asylum rejected but they do not get ELR, that they could become destitute because they have no status under the law? How many are there of those people; and what are you going to do about it? (Beverley Hughes) I would need to confirm that figure. I think notionally it is several hundred - the low hundreds. There is provision within NAS(?) arrangements for people in that position to have what is called, under the previous legislation, section 4 support. There are difficulties in that that support is simply accommodation. Whilst people are offered that, because we are contracted to provide that accommodation largely through the YMCA, we have not got that accommodation in every city in the country. People might have been living in one town but actually, if they qualify for that support, would be directed to live somewhere else, and quite often they just will not go. They are offered accommodation, and obviously food and so on within the accommodation, under the section 4 support. 644. It might be useful perhaps to have a little note on the numbers. These would seem to me to be a deserving group of people who have had their asylum claim rejected but they really cannot leave because they cannot go back to where they have come from, yet they do not have ELR. In the case Mr Winnick talked about they could go back to where they came from but these ones cannot. It might be helpful to know numbers. (Mr Jeffrey) I am not sure that we would readily accept that they cannot go back. If they have been refused asylum and have not been granted exception leave to remain under essentially compassionate grounds then, although in principle it would be hard for us to remove them in practice, there is nothing to prevent them returning. We know there are routes back to Kurdish controlled Northern Iraq which people often with status here do take. I do not think it is inconceivable that they should actually return from where they have come from. 645. Could you explain the difference between the exceptional leave to remain and the new status of humanitarian protection? What is the change meant to achieve? Is it a real change, or is it a labelling change? (Beverley Hughes) No, it is not a labelling change and it is intended to achieve a shift, in the sense that exceptional leave to remain has a very wide set of criteria, which includes a wide range of possible compassionate circumstances. Humanitarian protection will really now be in reserve for people who fail the test of persecution as defined in the Convention on the basis of race relations and so on, but nonetheless for other reasons would face risk to life and limb and torture were they to be returned. 646. Non-state persecution, something like that? (Beverley Hughes) Yes. 647. The Mafia? (Beverley Hughes) Criminality is a more difficult issue, because the test will include whether or not a particular country has the mechanisms that one would expect to be able to protect people from criminality, and has the human rights and criminal justice systems in place to be able to provide that protection. It will also include the test that exists at the moment under the Convention as to whether or not somebody could nonetheless return to a safe area of that country where the particular circumstances of their case did not pertain and they would be safe if in-country flight would be possible. It will reduce the numbers of people being given ELR at the moment once the system comes in on 1 April. 648. One other question about an unrelated topic, something related to our visit to Harmondsworth included in one of the bits of briefings we received. As I understand it, single mothers on benefit in this country can get tokens for infant formula milk but asylum seekers with young infants are not able to get those tokens. Why not? (Beverley Hughes) I will check this but I am sure the Home Secretary changed that provision. 649. He did not. I asked a parliamentary question about it and got the answer back that, unless it has changed since then, mothers who were asylum seekers with young children are not eligible to get tokens for infant formula milk. It seems odd to me, because a small number may be coming from Africa and may have Aids or other transferable diseases, and it would seem to be sensible to make available infant formula milk in the right circumstances. It obviously would not cost much money but just be a relatively straightforward change to make I would have thought? (Beverley Hughes) I am pretty sure that we have made a change. I think there may be a difference in the age of the children that qualify between indigenous people and children of asylum-seeking mothers. 650. My question was only a month ago. (Beverley Hughes) I will check on it. Chairman: Send us a note about that. Bridget Prentice 651. I am going to return to removal and delay but try not to cover the ground you have already covered with some of my less punctual colleagues. I want to ask you about how long the average wait from the end of appeal to removal is, if you have those figures; and what the longest wait has been. It has been put to us that it is almost entirely the fault of the Home Office that these delays occur. (Beverley Hughes) The variants in terms of the period between the end of the process and removal is very great indeed. People going through the non-suspensive appeals process at the moment, and I think about 97 per cent of those who are refused are removed within a period, it is taking about 10-14 days in total. That is at one end. At the other end, there are very small numbers of people who have been here some considerable time. I think the longest period of time, which you probably have already had, is somebody who has been in detention for about 500 days. 652. What is the reason behind that? Why is it taking so long? (Beverley Hughes) There are a number of reasons why removal cannot be affected immediately, which I am sure the Committee have come across in its deliberations. They are not all to do with the Home Office, although I think whilst we have got much better at organising removals, as I said at the beginning, I still think we have got further to go in terms of making this an integral part of the asylum process. Until recently it has been tacked on to the end and done separately; but I think it needs to be an integral part of the process. Travel documentation is one particular problem; legal issues; human rights applications and judicial reviews are another factor that can delay removal; lack of cooperation from receiving countries to accept somebody as their national; or, indeed, to agree, for example, to charter flights landing. There are a number of issues around other countries. Although this is not a factor in those rare cases where there are long delays, it does happen quite a lot as you probably heard from your visits to removal centres, I think it is an increasing phenomenon the behaviour of some asylum seekers as they are taken on to planes to try and frustrate removal by threatening violence or by pretending to be mentally ill. I think this is an issue because when those people (if the removal is thwarted through that because, understandably, pilots are reluctant to take people whose behaviour looks like it might be a risk) go back to the removal centre I am told through my visits that word gets round very quickly that this is one way of delaying the process. Last but not least, although this is not a significant factor in the run of things, as I said earlier I do get a large number of letters from MPS, and once an MP's letter comes in then the removal is delayed until I have looked at the case, which I try to do very, very quickly. I do think colleagues have to sometimes weigh up how they fulfil their obligations to people in their constituency, but also understand that sometimes MPs will also be used at the end of the road just to delay things further. 653. Amongst that variety of things, even after the appeal system has been gone through, there are still legal ways by which a person can delay removal? (Beverley Hughes) Yes. 654. Also problems with travel documents. Indeed, in our own visit one person told us directly that they do make themselves behave very badly on route to the plane in order to stop them going. Have you never considered then chartering a plane in which you would take purely those people who had to be removed? (Beverley Hughes) Yes, we actually do a lot of charter flights relatively. Obviously, as I say, we need the permission of the country to land and the technical ability to land. Certainly there have been weekly flights out to Kosovo. In fact, I went to Stanstead myself very early one morning before Christmas to see one of those charter flights and how it was handled. I was very impressed with LPI that had done the escort from Harmondsworth, and the way in which they managed that, and watched the flight go and talked to some of the people who were going on that flight. Where technically we can, where we have got the volume of people going to one place to support that - because that is where it makes sense also in terms of cost-effectiveness because it actually starts to become cheaper apart from anything else to move a large number of people (40 people, say, on a flight to Pristina) than to try and remove them individually even if we could - we are very keen to use charters, and where the volume of people going to one place supports that. (Mr Jeffrey) If I could just add some figures. In the last couple of years we have removed by charter just over 4,000 people to Kosovo. 655. What other improvements do you expect to see in terms of reducing that delay between decision and removal? (Beverley Hughes) First of all, we are trying to use contact management with asylum seekers right from the beginning of the process. Certainly with new intake people we have got the ART(?) card, we have got the identity, we have got the fingerprinting and we have got a number of pilots in different parts of the country, the Liverpool team for example, who work very well piloting a much more active contact management with people throughout the process, keeping in touch with them so that we actually know where they are, if and when their claim fails. Secondly, we are trying to anticipate problems with documentation much earlier in the process, and trying to resolve those difficulties or make sure that at the point at which the process is complete those problems have been resolved. That will not always be possible, but it is an attempt to say we are not going to wait until the end to suddenly find out we might have a problem with documentation. This has got to feature in the thinking about the management of that case right from the beginning. Thirdly, working diplomatically with colleagues in the Foreign Office with those countries where travel document issues, and issues about accepting people back, are more problematic, and that is going on. Fourthly, negotiating readmission agreements with particular countries. My colleague Bob Ainsworth, on our behalf, recently concluded readmission agreements with Bulgaria and Rumania, for instance. We are trying to work with Turkey to find a route through into Northern Iraq - not an admission agreement, obviously, but permission to have a route through there. Certainly those discussions were going reasonably well. A number of measures targeted on the particular problems to try and actually eradicate them. 656. I think we are aware of some countries being more resistant to having people returned to them than others. What do you do to keep people informed about the progress of the case? You have talked now about contact management. One of the problems that has been put to us is that a person is down for removal but has no idea when that is likely to happen; they are not able to take up work; they are given temporary permission to remain; all of which are really not satisfactory. What is done, or should there be anything done, to keep that person informed as to when they are likely to be removed? (Beverley Hughes) I would make two points there. I think keeping people informed is a good aspiration if you think people are going to cooperate with the removal. That is the dilemma in many cases, that people do not want to go and, therefore, there is a difficult decision about how far keeping people informed and therefore, in a sense, helping people to prepare for removal becomes counterproductive because they simply disappear. That is a difficult judgment to make. Secondly, it has been my view for some time, and I know Bill Jeffrey shares this, that we do not do as much as we could in terms of maximising the potential of voluntary departure. When I was in Canada before Christmas, although they deal with much smaller numbers and it is therefore much easier for them, nonetheless they do have an approach in which they start to talk to people from day one about "what if your claim does not succeed" and throughout the process, in a sense, to bring them to the point when their claim is refused of not just writing them a letter, not even just serving the notice on them personally (which we have started to do) by going round and giving them the letter of refusal, but actually calling them in and saying, "Look, here is your refusal letter. This is where we are. This is what the options are. One of the options is voluntary departure", and to put a case for that as a much more dignified and managed way of leaving the country, given that leaving will probably be inevitable. We want to try that approach much more, because I think there is much more potential to get people to that point of acceptance than perhaps we have been able to draw on hitherto. (Mr Jeffrey) Could I just briefly supplement that. I agree very much with what the Minister says about voluntary removal and we have got to build it much more into the process and work where we can get people to remove voluntarily; but we must accept also that it is in the nature of this phenomenon that the majority of people do not want to go. It is not really, as much as Mrs Prentice was suggesting, a question of us keeping people waiting (and I was tempted to make a point when we were talking about the impediment to removal) but more a question of a lot of people disappearing. I think our best chance in these cases lies through ever-closer relations with the police. We have always worked quite closely with the police. I think that relationship is building up in localities particularly in London, and we have a very close working relationship with the police which leads us to discover a number of people who have disappeared but whose removal we can then pursue. 657. One of the problems about disappearance is that it is such a gap between the decision and the potential removal. That is a good excuse to disappear, is it not? (Mr Jeffrey) Increasingly that is the not the case. There is a very significant difference between the past and the present. We do not really have the figures for the readings to deal with IT support if one goes into the past, as I mentioned earlier. It is certainly the case that there are people whose asylum claims date from some years ago who were refused some time between then and now and they have not been removed but have disappeared in the meantime. Exactly how many we cannot be sure. As one gets more up-to-date ones gets into a period in which the information is better, and our own performance is better in terms of taking relatively early decisions - we are hitting our decision-taking target at the moment - and then moving relatively quickly towards removal. Underlying that there are questions for us about where we set our targets. We have been giving quite a lot of thought internally to that in recent times. David Winnick 658. Minister, in many respects this is the crunch of the matter, is it not? You have people who, as far as they are concerned, think one asylum seeker is one too many, but for the large majority of people who will be reasonable the general feeling is that there is so much delay about those whose cases are judged to be lacking merit before they actually leave the country; and a good number, as indicated by Mr Jeffrey, simply disappear? (Beverley Hughes) I think you have to think of two populations because, as you know, there was a very significant backlog some years ago and what we tried to do to get on top of the whole process to deal with new claims and to set targets about the timescales for decisions and for appeal, and then to removal people with that population; but it is certainly true, that although we have reduced the peak of the backlog from 120,000 plus to just under 40,000 now, and that is not much more than work in progress, I think that is a considerable achievement. There is still obviously a significant number of people who have been here for some considerable time and they present particular issues, because the delay, yes, has been much greater in those cases. With the new cases, I think if you look at the course of those - and that is particularly why I want to have the cohort basis for statistics up and running - you will see that the process for them in terms of the timescale between the actual end of the process and removal is much, much less and coming down. We have also legislated for that group, since October 2000 was the implementation date, and the previous legislation, that people no longer can mount successive appeals; they have to put everything in one pot at the appeal stage. Whereas previously, for a group of people who have been here for some time and certainly came before October 2000, their process is still covered by the previous legislation. Some of those do put in successive appeals and human rights claims of one kind or another. Where we have changed the system, and set ourselves targets for new cases, we are not doing badly. It is the older cases, very often that MPs come across and write to me about, where, yes, those delays are significant and, yes, people can disappear. 659. Would you accept that at the moment, with a good deal of public disquiet - leaving aside those I have already mentioned whose prejudices can never be appeased, and should not be as far as I am concerned - and the broad public who have anxiety over the numbers of people staying in this country without any merit whatsoever, that much more will have to be done to assure the public that there is a far quicker process of removing people whose cases have been turned down by the Home Office and have no further right of appeal? (Beverley Hughes) I think you are absolutely right, yes. Of course I agree with you. I am a constituency MP as well. I think that those kinds of issues, together with what people see clearly as abuse of the asylum system, is what fires people's concern and anger, and rightly so. 660. Exploited of course by hooligan elements in the political field, and I am talking about the ultra right and the rest. (Beverley Hughes) Of course, that is why this issue can be and is being highjacked by those with a completely different agenda. The concerns of ordinary people in communities who see some of this abuse and have concerns about the number of people here illegally, nonetheless, are valid. As politicians I believe absolutely that we have to take those seriously and be thinking of doing something about it. I really share that with you. 661. The Government's record in this particular field will be judged, would you agree, Minister, by how far you are able to minimise the delay between those who have no right to stay in the country and their actual leaving? (Beverley Hughes) I certainly think that is one of the important variables. As I said earlier, reducing the number who come in, in the first place, is equally important; because if you can do that then you are obviously dealing with a smaller group of people and the task becomes more easily manageable; and also the visibility with your success in dealing with people becomes more apparent. Miss Widdecombe 662. May I just look a little further at this issue of delay ad look not at delays between ultimate refusal and removal but rather at delays earlier on in the system - delays which may encourage people to build lives here while they are quite genuinely waiting for a decision. You gave a rather rosy picture of where you would like to be about working with people through the various stages of their applications, and preparing them for removal at the end of it; but the reality is very different. Those of us who, unlike one of your ministerial colleagues, have not banned all asylum seekers from our surgeries are regularly presented with cases of people who come and they have got a port reference; they have got solicitors' letters; the address that they initially gave is the same as the address at which they are still living; and sometimes, 16 months down the line, they are still there waiting for a determination. All the time that they are waiting for that determination they are beginning to build lives in this country, which is what makes removal difficult when the time comes. Indeed, as the Home Secretary acknowledged the week before last during questions, the longer you leave it and the more people build lives here, validly, while waiting for a decision, the more complex removal becomes. What can you do that is serious and effective about actually responding to queries from people who are waiting for a decision over inordinate periods of time and whose complaint to me all the time is, "They won't tell us what's happening. We can't get through. Nobody seems to have their finger on this particular case". That seems to me still to be a significant area of failure? (Beverley Hughes) I think you are raising two issues in there. I want to clarify with you that my understanding of the question does raise two issues. One is the actual period of time for the determination and its various stages; and, secondly, you are raising a point about people saying they are finding it difficult to get information and replies to letters within a reasonable period of time. On the former, that has been one of the most important objectives that we have already referred to several times in this session, to reduce right down the period of time that it was taking for somebody's determination to be concluded. We have made legislative changes I have just referred to in order to prevent people extending that process through successive legal challenges but, for our side as well in IND and in the Immigration Appellate Authority, setting targets within which we want to see cases determined. For the initial decision, which is undertaken by caseworkers, we set a target in successive years for certain percentages to be determined within six months. We are already exceeding that target. I think the target for this year is 65 per cent determined within two months, and we are doing well over 70 per cent of cases within two months. I am not saying 70 per cent is the end of the road, but we have made enormous progress, I hope members would agree, in that stage of the determination with so many now decided within two months. We need to continue to make progress at the two other points in the system. One is the time taken for the Home Office to prepare the bundles, as they are called, to be sent to the Appellate Authority; and then for the Appellate Authority to determine the appeal; and we are seeking a target of four months there - envisaging a six-month process for most of the applications. We are on course to achieve that substantially. In relation to queries, this is a problem. It is a problem I meet as Minister because MPs continually write to me, often not simply to say, "Please don't remove somebody", but to say, "Can I please have an answer to my letter of three/four months ago". I have made, with Bill Jeffrey and others, really very considerable efforts to make sure that just generally in terms of administration we bring IND up to the standards that you would expect of an excellent public service; and it is not there yet, but what I can tell you is that we have put processes in place that, starting with MPs' correspondence, working through official and public correspondence, we have plans and mechanisms in place to drive up performance on that. I am seeing performance increase. We have also improved the MPs' hotline; and colleagues have said to me that they have noticed the improvement in the MPs' hotline. We have substantially strengthened that with back-up teams of caseworkers so queries can be answered properly. Right throughout the system the delivery plan that has been produced in relation to SR202, whilst much of that is about the high level targets we need and want to achieve in relation to the asylum system, we know that much of that depends on having a strong, well organised organisation administratively. We have now a substantially new team at directorate level, and are going through the rest of the organisation in terms of new appointments, and not a wholesale reorganisation but strengthening the capacity of the organisation; and the objective of delivering administratively and organisationally is as important to me as some of these very high level more political objectives around asylum and how we manage it. I will ask Bill just to say a bit more about some of the detail because it is a very important issue that you have raised. 663. Before he answers, can I just try and focus on what I am saying which is that you get people who arrive and obey the rules at least as far as determination is concerned; but that the point from arrival to determination can often be, I would say, excessive. If you are 70 per cent there, nearly one-third of people are still facing long delays. In between that point and long before they come to an MP who then writes to you, they are trying to get information on the progress of their case and getting absolutely nowhere at all. It is fairly easy, and we have all done it, to talk about targets and statistics. What I would like to know is when we are going to notice a step change in the number of those people coming to see us? (Beverley Hughes) Both in terms of the time taken and their problem in getting information - in terms of the former, I am not saying that 70 per cent is enough but we started where we started, and we are where we are. We want to drive up from that. That 70 per cent has to increase to 75 per cent and go beyond that. You will know, because of your experience, that you simply cannot click your fingers and change from a system with long delays in it to making sure everybody has their claim determined within six months within the space of a year. You actually have to build on building the capacity; build the practice experience and do that as quickly as possible, but you cannot do that overnight. I am not being complacent; I am simply saying to you that we have made progress, and will continue to make progress. I accept that some people in that 30 per cent are not having their cases decided in anything like two months of the initial decision. We need to improve further. I also accept your basic premise that the longer people are here in this country legitimately waiting for their claim to be determined, yes, the factors that make removal more difficult in terms of them putting down roots and making relationships become more difficult. We have an obligation to keep that timescale as short as we can. On the information flows I will look particularly at that issue with Bill Jeffrey in terms of people's queries about the process of their application. As I have said, more generally it is part and parcel of complete reform of IND administratively which is a continuing process. (Mr Jeffrey) Could I just make two points. Firstly, as the Minister says, I do not think any of us - including any of the staff who work hard in IND but sometimes do not produce outcomes that they themselves would be happy with - would want to say the general administration of the Directive is as it could or should be. What we are about now, and it is the larger part of job, is to change the organisation, to change the performance that we provide, not least to Members of Parliament. I am sure Miss Widdecombe would say that the proof of that pudding is in the eating and I certainly agree with that. We are determined to improve things like the quality of the public inquiry service and the telephone enquiry bureau and we are making some progress. On the main issue the Committee is discussing today perhaps I could just add two facts to what the Minister has said. On appeals we are currently receiving something like 4,000 appeals a month, and the Appellate Authorities are disposing of something like 6,000 a month; so there is steady progress in that area. In relation to intake, the reason we are getting the asylum intake down, as crucial as it is, is that if we can get it down we can then begin to eat into these older cases. It is true that we are much more on top of the more recent cases that we ever were before; but if we can reduce the intake to the point where we are gaining ground by eating into the backlog of around 40,000 that the Minister mentioned then there really is a chance that we will get substantially on top of the problem. This month, without going into specifics for reasons that the Minister gave earlier, we have determined a thousand or more cases in excess of those we received. There is a sense in which if we can keep getting the intake down we can actually make some inroads not only into the current cases but into the backlog as well. Bob Russell 664. Minister, is it correct that an increasing number of countries are not accepting the common format European Union letter and Chicago Convention travel document as valid documentation for people being returned? If that is the case, why? Are you able to say which countries are the main offenders, as it were? What action is the UK government taking to try to redress that problem? (Beverley Hughes) It is true that there is a slight increase in the number of countries no longer accepting EU letters. I think it is about 30 countries in all now which do not accept them. Not all of those countries are significant from a removal asylum seeker point of view - obviously places like Germany and New Zealand - but others are: Algeria, Sri Lanka, India and China, for instance, do not accept those documents, and that is significant. Obviously without a travel document, even on charter flights, we cannot remove people without a travel document. Some countries also have quite a long verification process before they will issue a document. As I said earlier, we are doing a number of things to try and address that issue, including diplomatic negotiations with some of those countries to try and unblock that issue. It is a significant issue for some people in terms of removing them. 665. Is progress being made with those main players you have just mentioned? (Beverley Hughes) Yes, with some of them. 666. So watch this space? (Beverley Hughes) Yes. 667. Minister, many witnesses have expressed disapproval of the way in which removals from homes are carried out. The Immigration Advisory Service said, "We are concerned at frequent reports of cases where persons reporting to the Home Office are taken into detention without any prior warning and removed the following day without them being able to collect their personal possessions or make arrangements regarding their accommodation, engagements etc. IAS has personal examples of this inhumane treatment". Why, therefore, is it being done? (Beverley Hughes) As I said earlier, the removal teams and the local enforcement officers have to make a judgment based on the history of the case as to whether people are likely to resist removal. Certainly it is my information that in the case of family removals usually a pastoral visit is made before removal. In some cases, if there has been evidence of attempts to frustrate removal then, yes, some of those visits do take place unannounced, and they can take place in the early hours of the morning, because that is when we expect people to be there. I think those instances are kept to a minimum. I have had some feedback from colleagues recently about the way in which particularly difficult removals were conducted praising the removal team that arrived. Yes, there are difficult issues here; and if we want to increase the number of people that are removed then, as the Director General said recently, we do start from the position that most people do not want to go. Therefore, in some instances that is the procedure that has to be adopted. 668. The Immigration Advisory Service do not agree with that scenario, because they then go on to say, "There is little evidence to the contrary that in most cases persons informed that they must leave will do so in an orderly fashion without the need for detention". While accepting there will be the cases of the type you referred to, the Immigration Advisory Service are saying that they are very much in a minority. That being the case, could I ask you and your colleagues to look again as to whether the early dawn raids and so on are necessarily the right picture that the government should be putting out; or is that a deliberate picture that they put out? (Beverley Hughes) No, it is not a deliberate picture, in the sense that we want to execute a removal in the most straightforward way possible. In fact, a removal of that kind requires a lot of resources. We have police presence. We have to have a warrant to enter. It is highly organised and orchestrated and takes a lot of time and preparation. If there are alternatives for some people then we will use them. I do not accept at all what the Immigration Advisory Service is saying. I wonder what their contentions are based on; because our experience is that, in fact, many people do not want to go and that does raise issues about how you manage an effective removal. Even as members of the Committee you have talked to people in removal centres and surely got a clear picture that there are many people who do not want to go, and even at the point of being detained and taken to an aeroplane will try and frustrate that removal. We have to respond to the behaviour that people demonstrate. In some stances, in order to remove people, we have to undertake the procedure in the way you have outlined. 669. No doubt the Immigration Advisory Service will read your response and communicate with you accordingly. How frequently are people removed mistakenly where they have not finished all the stages of their asylum claim; and if there are such cases, are they audited; and what are you doing to avoid them? (Beverley Hughes) There have been a very small number of cases, certainly that have come to my attention, where people have been removed before their process has finally ended. That has usually been as a result of a very late representation not being communicated to the removal centre in time to stop that removal.. We have been looking at the systems in relation to particular cases as to how we strengthen that. 670. I appreciate that. Just as an aside, Minister, the compassionate way that the Government wishes to proceed, there are occasions when there are children in this country who are at school who have school exchange trips overseas, are you able to provide documentation to enable a child under the age of 18 to travel with a school party and then return to the UK? Clearly they do not have documentation otherwise. Is there such a provision? (Beverley Hughes) Yes. 671. Finally, Chairman, is there any monitoring of what happens to people returned to their country? Is there any risk to them when they are handed over to the immigration authorities in the receiving country? Is Chechnya regarded any differently to any other part of Russia? (Beverley Hughes) On the former part of your question, clearly there will be some support for those people who return voluntarily; that is part of the package for voluntary returns, to have some in-kind support - not cash; and some resource is spent on establishing people when they get back. Generally speaking, for enforced removal that will not be the case, no. People are going back to their country of nationality, and I do not think it would be reasonable to extend the remit of the immigration and nationality department to actually finding out what happens after they have returned to their country - other than making sure, as there is in most instances, that one of the voluntary agencies that we work with (such as the International Organisation for Migration) will be there and is available for people to give them further assistance if that is required. 672. What is the definition of nationality for those people from Chechnya? (Beverley Hughes) I think you raised this last time. 673. I know, and I shall keep on raising it. (Beverley Hughes) The applications from people from Chechnya are decided in the same way as every other application on the basis of their individual merit. Chechnya is an integral part of the Russian federation. For those people who are of no interest to the Russian authorities there will be no issue if their claim fails of returning them, possibly to somewhere else within the Russian federation. Some people will not be returned. It really does depend on their individual cases; and in that sense they are treated in exactly the same way as every other applicant. Chairman 674. We return people to Chechnya, do we? (Beverley Hughes) I need to check if we have returned somebody actually to Chechnya. We have certainly returned Chechnyans to other parts of the Russian Federation. Mr Cameron 675. Minister, trying to understand a bit the basis of the decision taken to detain someone prior to removal. Is there a series of risk factors that are looked at? How is that judgment made? It is a question we asked at Harmondsworth and I did not quite understand the answer. (Beverley Hughes) There is a series of criteria for staff to use, including when we need to establish somebody's identity - and obviously if they are one of a group that at the moment can be fast-tracked through the Oakington process - where we do not think somebody will comply with any conditions that could be attached to temporary admission, or in order to effect a removal. 676. And what percentage of those who are not detained abscond or fail to co-operate with the removal directions? (Beverley Hughes) I cannot give you an overall figure for that this morning. It varies in relation to different groups in that overall population, to be honest. You might be talking about people given temporary admission. Are you talking about asylum claimants? 677. Yes. It is a very difficult thing we are asking you to measure but the purpose of the question really is to try and work out are you detaining the right people and how do you measure whether you are detaining the right people and how can you have a rolling improvement to your system so that you only use detention when it is necessary. There must be some indicator that you use and it might be useful for our final report to know a bit more about that. (Beverley Hughes) We are trying to use detention in an increasingly selected and targeted way and trying to keep the period of detention as short as possible and focused on the point of removal. You are right, we do need, I think, to look increasingly strategically at both removals generally and how we use detention to support the strategic priorities in relation to removal and that is some work that is going on at the moment. We have been reviewing internally and across government how removals are executed. That review has produced some action points that we think we can take forward and I think one of the most significant - and you have talked to some of the arrest teams/enforcement teams - is that whilst there is a very strong commitment amongst the teams to removing people and improving performance, we could do better if we had a clearer set of strategic priorities about how we might do that and what particular groups of people within the total population of asylum seekers it might be useful to have a priority on and, secondly, how we use detention to support that strategic objective. 678. There is one group of people it has been put to us that it should not be necessary to detain which is those who have got family or substantial property and business here. Surely, they are less likely to abscond before removal? (Beverley Hughes) I cannot disprove the implied contention in your question that there might be significant numbers of people who have got those established roots whom we have detained., but I would be very surprised if that were the case. With families it is sometimes more difficult. There are some families in detention but, by and large, certainly in relation to the families I have seen and am aware of, they are not families with well-established roots here but are families that have come here very recently. 679. Do you have a figure for the proportion of detainees that have not completed all the legal stages of their asylum claims, those who are still going through the process? (Mr Jeffrey) We might be able to get that, I do not have that with me. 680. Clearly if someone is absolutely at the last appeal and you are worried they are going to abscond if that appeal goes the wrong way, is that the only reason for holding somebody when the legal avenues have not been fully explored? (Mr Jeffrey) No, it is not. As the Minister was saying earlier, we are smarter than we used to be in using detention. We used to really make an assessment as to whether the people were a good or bad bet, whether they were likely to abscond or not. We are focusing it much more on the end of the process, people who are within sight of being removed, so I think it is unlikely that we would be detaining in many cases other than quite close to the point when we think removal is actually within sight. 681. But it is not ruled out? (Beverley Hughes) To supplement that, we have mentioned Oakington and the fast-track process and that is another attempt to use detention sparingly but to keep people in detention not just at the end of the process but right throughout the process where you know you can execute that process in a very short period of time, in a matter of two or three weeks. 682. In the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 there was provision for automatic bail hearings. That was never implemented and it has now been repealed. Could you explain why? (Beverley Hughes) You will recall that we had this debate during the passage of the most recent piece of legislation in which that provision was repealed. We felt looking at the number of people who had used that facility - and, as you say, it had not actually been enacted - there had not been any great call for that. People can apply for bail at any time and therefore the resources involved in implementing what would be a six-monthly routine consideration of whether somebody should be given bail and all the apparatus that would have entailed in the light of the fact that people can through their representatives apply for bail at any time at all it seemed an unnecessary bureaucracy. Mr Clappison 683. Were those factors known when the decision was taken to include that provision in the Bill originally? The picture which you have just described now, was that known when the provision for automatic bail was first included in the Bill? (Beverley Hughes) Was it known that people could apply for bail at any time? 684. Yes, was the picture the same as to whether people availed themselves of that opportunity then? (Beverley Hughes) I would imagine that it was but I would also imagine that this was included as a potential extra safeguard. Having looked at the picture again, and for the reasons I have just outlined, and in terms of what we are trying to achieve now, it seems to be an unnecessarily stringent safeguard and one that is actually unnecessary. 685. I understand, I am exploring the reasons why it was done in the first place because it seems a little strange. (Beverley Hughes) It may well have been an amendment. Bridget Prentice 686. A quick question on detention; is it in theory possible, Minister, for somebody to be detained indefinitely? (Beverley Hughes) No, it is not legal for somebody to be detained indefinitely with no clear purpose. There either has to be the prospect of removal or working towards removal for that to be lawful. We cannot simply keep people detained for no reason. 687. Even when all the reasons you have given as to why removal might be delayed, some people have been detained for quite a long time. Is that not in contravention of some of our international obligations? Should there not be a maximum period? (Beverley Hughes) I would not support the idea there should be a maximum period and I would also point out that people through their representatives have the opportunity to challenge continued detention through the courts if it is felt to be excessive. There is only really that one case where for very particular reasons that person has been detained for a considerable period of time. If you look at the figures even for people detained more than a few days we are actually taking a few weeks largely as being the extended periods of detention as we regard them, so I would not support a maximum period and I think the legal redresses people have to challenge if they do think detention is excessive are adequate. Chairman 688. But people do remain in detention for long periods, do they not, because of the difficulties of removing them? (Beverley Hughes) There is a very small number who have been in for a period of time. 689. We were waylaid by somebody at Harmondsworth who had been detained for six months or so. (Beverley Hughes) As I say, the legal position - and I will get the Director to check this - is that we cannot detain indefinitely unless there is the prospect of removal in circumstances where, as was mentioned before with certain groups of people, even if we had the detention space, we could not detain them if there was no prospect of removal. (Mr Jeffrey) The test is the one that the Minister mentioned, namely there has to be a prospect of removal and, as I said earlier, we are detaining people for lengthy periods much less frequently than we used to in the past. The one exception, just to be clear about it, is in relation to terrorist suspects (and you will be very familiar with the legislation that was passed after 11 September) which does allow for detention, although we have no desire for it to be indefinite, where there is not an immediate prospect of removal. Mr Prosser 690. I want to ask a few questions about conditions in detention centres. We have been told - and it has certainly been my experience - that the living conditions in those parts of the estate run by the private sector are far above that run by the Immigration Service and certainly far above those run in wings of prisons or former parts of the prison estate; what is your view? (Beverley Hughes) I cannot give you a view from personal experience because I have visited two of the removal centres so far working my way round them. I have visited Harmondsworth and Dungavel in Scotland and both of those of course are contracted out. I have not visited Haslar, Lindholme or Dover Harbour yet which would be in the other category you outline. I think it was recognised when some of the former Prison Service establishments were re-rolled, as it was called, to become removal centres that there would be a period in which the conditions would have to catch up to what was already available in the contracted-out centres, but they do operate in the same way and they all operate to the same standards. They are all operated under the detention centre rules and in the three former Prison Service facilities we are continuing to work on those areas that do need improvement. 691. You are working towards harmonising the conditions, but has the Operating Standards document been published yet? (Beverley Hughes) I think so. (Mr Jeffrey) I am not sure. (Beverley Hughes) When you say Operating Standards document, what do you mean? 692. It is a document which you proposed to publish in order to raise all the standards to a common level. (Beverley Hughes) Certainly there is such a document internally within IMD. I will make enquiries about any commitment to making a public document available and write to you after the meeting. 693. Thank you. Can you tell us how many instances you are aware of of self-harm or suicide in our detention centres, be they run by the Immigration Service or by the private sector? (Beverley Hughes) I cannot give you a figure today but we will certainly provide you with one. Although obviously any incident is of concern, they are very small in number. There are instances of self-harm. There is only one case that I know of during my period of office in which there has been a successful suicide attempt and actually that was quite recently. So that is one of those and the numbers of self-harm incidents are relatively small. 694. Finally, are you confident that you have measures in place at all centres which protect against these sad occasions? (Beverley Hughes) Yes. You will know that all of the centres, whether they are contracted out or in house so to speak, are managed by IMD. All of the contracted-out centres have a contract manager who is an ideal person and there are mechanisms in place whereby those people meet together and make sure that the standards operating are harmonised as far as possible. Are you asking specifically about self-harm and suicide? 695. Yes. (Beverley Hughes) Although having come from a Prison Service background, I think we probably need to strengthen the extent to which we collate information and have a really robust picture of those incidents and that is something that we are going to put in place. Chairman 696. Finally Minister, voluntary returns. About 1,200 people I think returned voluntarily during 2001. How can the programme be extended? (Beverley Hughes) As I said earlier, I think there is more potential within voluntary returns, notwithstanding the fact that some people do not want it. I think there is more potential and we have not yet capitalised on the voluntary returns programme generally. In terms of immediate extensions, you know about the Afghan returns programme. 697. Is the Afghan programme separate from the one we have been given this 1,200 figure for? (Beverley Hughes) The figures are all included I think. 698. That includes the Afghan programme? (Beverley Hughes) Yes. In terms of voluntary returns, I think we can do much more in the removal centres themselves. The way it operates at the moment, as you probably know, is that in a way people almost have to be self-selecting. They have to first of all know about the voluntary returns programme. They tend, as I understand it, to have to make an approach themselves to the International Organisation for Migration which then deals with the practicalities on behalf of the Home Office. There is certainly a lot more potential for us to make sure the information is available, that people are talked through it and if they want to make an approach to the IOM they are helped to do that, as opposed to simply left to get on with it. As I say, we are looking at all of those ways in which we can strengthen that. There is a slight issue in the removals centres, I do not know what feedback you got from people there, both staff and detainees, but we need to make sure that does not look terribly coercive if we are trying to help people to remove voluntarily. Having said that, it does seem clear to me that there is a gap at the moment at the point at which people reach the end of the road in terms of the vigour and the thoroughness with which they are really informed that this is an option for them. 699. Perhaps that refusal ought to be accompanied by a leaflet on how you can organise a voluntary return? (Beverley Hughes) Yes, I think in all our communications, including either a leaflet or quite explicitly in the refusal letter, that is one of the options we are considering that we ought to be doing that. 700. What is available to someone returning voluntarily? (Beverley Hughes) Outside of the Afghan programme it is benefits in kind at the moment not cash, up to the value of г500 per person. 701. What about the air fare? (Beverley Hughes) Yes, that is all settled. 702. The air fare, and then what are these benefits in kind and how are they delivered? (Beverley Hughes) They are delivered by the voluntary organisations in the countries to which people are going which will organise, as far as they can, whatever particular support people need and then get recompensed for that by the Home Office. It really depends whether it is help to organise housing, help into employment, those kinds of things, that will help people to restabilise themselves in their country. 703. Would you be able to give us a breakdown of the countries to which these 1,200 people returned? (Beverley Hughes) Yes, of course. 704. You could do that? (Beverley Hughes) Yes, we will provide you with that certainly. Chairman: It will give us some idea. Thank you very much for coming to see us. I am sorry we have strayed slightly over the two hours that we were aiming for. I think it has been a very helpful session and we look forward to seeing you again in the not-too-distant future. Thank you very much. Thank you to Mr Jeffrey and Ms Ramlagan-Singh. The session is closed.