Chronology

Thurs 14 July 2005	Publication of  NAO Report on Returning Failed Asylum Applicants HC79 2005-06.  (Click here to read it).
Weds 26 October 2005	The Commons Public Accounts Committee takes evidence on the above NAO Report, with Sir John Gieve, the Home Office’s then Permanent Secretary and ‘Accounting Officer’ (i.e. the official who is legally responsible for explaining to Parliament how public money is spent), as chief witness. I ask Sir John Gieve for details to be sent to the Committee of the number of criminals who are failed asylum seekers and are then released from prison: how many there are, where they are, what types of crime they have committed, what sentences they were given and how long they served.
Tues 31 January 2006	Home Office’s Accounts are published, with a complete “disclaimer” by Sir John Bourn, Comptroller and Auditor General and head of the National Audit Office (Click here to read it)  i.e. in effect they are presented to Parliament unaudited – and this is unprecedented for a major spending Department. I ask for Sir John Gieve, now Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, to be called back to the PAC to account for his stewardship of the Home Office and the state of the accounts.
Tues 14 March 2006	Publication of Public Accounts Committee report Returning Failed Asylum Applicants: Public Accounts Committee 34th Report of Session 2005-06, HC 620. This report includes a figure of 403 foreign national criminals released from prison without deportation proceedings being completed, but contains no information on crimes committed. (Click here to read it).
Mon 20 March 2006	I wrote to Sir David Normington, Sir John Gieve’s successor as Permanent Secretary, asking for proper answers to his questions about what criminal offences had been committed by those released from prison because their removal or deportation from the UK could not be arranged.
Tues 25 April 2006	The Home Secretary makes a Written Statement  stating that the earlier figure of 403 given to the PAC and published on 14 March 2006 was incorrect, and that a total of 1,023 foreign national criminals, who should have been considered for deportation or removal, completed their prison sentences and were released without any consideration of deportation or removal action. The Home Secretary also writes to the Chairman of the PAC with a breakdown of the crimes committed. This shows that murderers, rapists, arsonists and drug dealers are among those released.   Offence Count ABH/GBH 54 Arson 4 Assisting/facilitating illegal entry 16 Burglary 41 Conspiracy 6 Customs (other) 6 Deception 66 Driving Offences 5 Drugs - importation 20 Drugs - supply 62 Drugs - possession 95 Drugs - other 27 False imprisonment 3 False instrument 85 Fraud 33 Immigration (other) 12 Indecent assault 27 Kidnapping 4 Manslaughter 2 Murder 3 Rape 9 Robbery 93 Sex offences (minors) 5 Sex offences (other) 7 Theft & kindred 52 Violence (other) 57 Other 126 Not Available 103 Total 1,023 SOURCE: Home Office
Weds 26 April 2006	Sir John Gieve is called back to appear before PAC, together with his successor as permanent secretary, Sir David Normington, to give evidence about the Home Office’s disclaimed accounts.

A more detailed account follows below:

14 July 2005  

The National Audit Office publishes its report:  Returning Failed Asylum Applicants HC 79 2005-06   Click here for full report, especially paragraph 3.10 on page 22: 

26 October 2005

The Public Accounts Committee held a hearing on the NAO’s report Returning Failed Asylum Applicants and took evidence from:  Witnesses: Sir John Gieve KCB, Permanent Secretary, Mr Jeremy Oppenheim, Director, Head of National Asylum Support Service, Home Office; and Mr Brodie Clark, Senior Director for Operations, Immigration and Nationality Directorate.

At the hearing I asked about paragraph 3.10 on page 22 of the NAO’s report, which reads:

Criminal cases

3.10    The Directorate has had difficulty meeting its target for the timely removal of criminal cases. Of those detained on immigration grounds after the end of their criminal sentence, some 55 per cent are failed asylum applicants or have applied for asylum while serving prison sentences for criminal offences. A specialist Criminal Casework Team works to a target of achieving 85 per cent of removals within 28 days of the end of the individual’s criminal sentence. In the six months to July 2004, its management information showed it had achieved 71 per cent within 28 days. At 1 August 2004, however, 33 per cent of criminal cases being held in immigration detention beyond the end of their criminal sentence had been held for more than six months. The Criminal Casework Team took longer to remove some cases than the 28 days allowed because the offenders had not co-operated with the documentation and removal process or had claimed asylum at the end of their sentence. The Criminal Casework Team did not have figures available on how many failed applicants had been released from prison because removal could not be arranged.

 I asked the following questions:

Q79 Mr Bacon: Could I ask you to turn to page 22 where it refers to the position of failed applicants who have been released from prison. How many failed applicants have been released from prison because their removal could not be arranged?

Mr Clark: We would think around 500.

Q80  Mr Bacon: So these are people who have no right to be in this country, who have committed a criminal offence, who have served time in prison and who you have now released from prison back into the community because you cannot remove them, is that right?

Mr Clark: Pending their case being dealt with.

Q81  Mr Bacon: Pending their case being dealt with?

Mr Clark: Yes.

Q82  Mr Bacon: Do you know where all these 500 people are?

Mr Clark: I am not sure what the answer would be. There will be some who we believe have absconded.

 And later I asked for a detailed note:

Q155 Mr Bacon: If you can possibly send a note in, as far as you have information on this, about the number of criminals who are failed asylum seekers and are then released from prison: how many there are, where they are, what type of crime they have committed, what sentences they were given and how long they served? Is it possible for you to do a note on that?

 Sir John Gieve: I can do a note and let you have the information we have.

31 January 2006

The Home Office’s Accounts are published with a complete “disclaimer” by Sir John Bourn, Comptroller and Auditor General and head of the National Audit Office i.e. in effect they are presented to Parliament unaudited, which is unprecedented for a major spending Department. 

Sir John Gieve was ‘Accounting Officer’ (i.e. legally responsible for explaining to Parliament how public money is spent) in the period under review, although he left to become Deputy Governor of the Bank of England without signing the accounts.

 (N.B. More detail in the Note on the Disclaimed Accounts below).

14 March 2006

The note which I had requested on 26 October with more detailed information was published in the PAC Report Returning Failed Asylum Applicants: Public Accounts Committee 34^th Report of Session 2005-06, HC 620 on 14 March 2006, which stated that “we know of 403 foreign nationals who were released from prison without deportation proceedings being completed.”  See here for full report, especially on page Ev 25:

However, the Home Office avoided my other questions
i.e. where they are, what type of crime they have committed, what sentences they were given and how long they served?

20 March 2006

I therefore wrote to Sir David Normington, who took over in January 2006 as the new Permanent Secretary at the Home Office, to ask him to supply fuller answers, as follows:

Sir David Normington KCB
Permanent Secretary
Home Office
2 Marsham Street
LONDON         SW1P 4DF

20 March 2006

 

You will be aware that the Commons Public Accounts Committee recently published its thirty-fourth report of the 2005-06 Session, concerning the returning of failed asylum applicants. 

During the Committee’s hearing on this matter, which took place on Wednesday 26 October 2005, I asked Sir John Gieve KCB to provide the committee with a note regarding the number of criminals who are failed asylum seekers and are then released from prison; how many offenders there are, where they are, what types of crime they have committed, what sentences they were given and how long they served.

I see from Sir John’s note on page Ev 25 of the published report that 403 foreign nationals were released from prison between 2001 and August 2005 without deportation proceedings being completed.

I would be most grateful if you could let me know, as per my question, what offences the 403 released foreign nationals had been convicted of committing.

I look forward to hearing from you.

 

RICHARD BACON MP

 

25 April 2006

I received no response to this letter until the Home Secretary makes a Written Statement on Tuesday 25^th April and also writes to the Chairman of the PAC, Edward Leigh MP, apologising for having provided incomplete information to the Committee.

The Home Secretary states that the earlier figure of 403 given to the PAC and published on 14 March 2006 was incorrect and should have been 609 foreign nationals released without considering deportation between 2001 and August 2005.  Furthermore, between February 1999 and March 2006 a total of 1,023 foreign national criminals, who should have been considered for deportation or removal, completed their prison sentences and were released without any consideration of deportation or removal action.

Later it emerges from the Home Office that 288 prisoners have been released since the end of August 2005, out of the total of 1,023 prisoners released since February 1999.

 

26 April 2006

The timing of the Home Secretary’s ministerial statement on Tuesday 25 April was in the knowledge of the impending appearance of both Sir David Normington and Sir John Gieve at the PAC the following day, Wednesday 26 April.

Sir David Normington states at the PAC hearing on Wednesday 26 April that of the 288 prisoners released since August 2005, the monthly breakdown was as follows:

2005
	Number of foreign nationals released
September	61
October	49
Novermber	34
December	49
2006
January	40
February	30
March	25
TOTAL	288

At the hearing I ask Sir David Normington to provide to the Committee a breakdown of all 1,023 prisoners released, both by month of release and by type of crime committed.  This information has not yet been given to the Committee by the Home Office but when it is available I will be seeking the permission of the Committee to place it in the public domain.

The presence of Sir John Gieve at the hearing on 26 April was to account for the parlous state of the financial accounts while he was Permanent Secretary and Accounting Officer.   See more below, which provides useful pointers on the state of management information in the Home Office and the extent to which senior management has a grip on the Department.

NOTE ON THE HOME OFFICE’S DISCLAIMED ACCOUNTS

In normal circumstances, the PAC only calls the current Accounting Officer, which in the case of the Home Office is now Sir David Normington (previously at the Department for Education and Skills when Charles Clarke was Education Secretary). 

However, the Home Office accounts are in a truly dreadful state. Sir John Bourn, Comptroller and Auditor General and head of the National Audit Office (NAO) had “disclaimed” the entire set of Home Office Resource accounts.

This is the nuclear option for the National Audit Office. It is even worse than a “qualified opinion” on certain aspects of the accounts e.g. for the Department of Work and Pensions, which regularly has a qualified opinion against its accounts.

A “disclaimed” set of accounts means that Sir John Bourn, Comptroller and Auditor General, has washed his hands of the accounts entirely, and that the accounts are presented to Parliament unaudited.   The Accounting Officer, who is legally responsible to Parliament for how public money is spent, has thus failed in his basic duty.

As Sir John Bourn states:

The pervasive and fundamental nature of the problems encountered during my audit mean that I am unable to reach an opinion as to whether the financial statements show a true and fair view.

I therefore asked the Committee that when the PAC met to consider the Home Office Accounts, Sir John Gieve should be called back as a witness, even though he has now moved on to become Deputy Governor of the Bank of England. 

Even though the Home Office in 2004-05 had gross expenditure of £13 billion and employed around 90,000 people, the Comptroller and Auditor General could not reach an opinion on the truth and fairness of the Home Office’s 2004-05 resource accounts (a ‘disclaimed audit opinion’). The Home Office’s failure to have audited accounts for 2004-05 laid before the House of Commons by 31 January 2006 means that:

• The Home Office cannot say with certainty how much money it spent in the year, what debts it is owed and owes to others, and what assets it owns.
  
• The Treasury cannot have confidence in information provided by the Home Office;
  
  
• The Accounting Officer of the Home Office cannot be assured that all expenditure incurred in the year was regular.

Sir John Bourn’s Disclaimer on the Home Office Resource Accounts is as follows:

Disclaimer of opinion on view given by financial statements

Because of the pervasive and fundamental nature of the problems encountered during my audit and the possible effects of the limitation in evidence available to me I am unable to form an opinion as to whether:

• the financial statements give a true and fair view of the state of affairs of the Home Office at 31 March 2005 and whether they have been properly prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 and directions made thereunder by the Treasury; and
  
• in all material respects the expenditure and income have been applied to the purposes intended by Parliament and the financial transactions conform to the authorities which govern them.

  The Home Office has not maintained proper accounting records which would have enabled them to disclose with reasonable accuracy at any time the financial position of the Department.

  See full Home Office Resource Accounts 2004-05 report here, especially pages 23 - 29.

NOTE ON THE ROLES OF THE NATIONAL AUDIT OFFICE AND OF THE PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

The National Audit Office (NAO) scrutinises public spending on behalf of Parliament. It is totally independent of government and audits the accounts of all government departments and agencies as well as a wide range of other public sector bodies. The NAO reports to Parliament through the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee on the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which government bodies have used public money. The NAO is headed by the Comptroller and Auditor General, Sir John Bourn, who is an officer of the House of Commons.

The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) is a select committee of MPs which examines “the accounts showing the appropriation of the sums granted by Parliament to meet the public expenditure, and….such other accounts laid before Parliament as the Committee may think fit”. Most of the Committee’s work consists in examining the value for money reports made to Parliament by the National Audit Office in relation to government expenditure.

Richard Bacon MP

28 April 2006

---