Question: What is the real picture on the issue of asylum?

John Denham: The government has made some real progress on the issue of asylum. The measures it has taken have helped reduce the number of asylum applications as well as increasing the number of removals of failed asylum seekers. But there are still weaknesses in the system that need to be addressed.

Question: What do you perceive those weaknesses to be?

John Denham: There needs to be an improvement in the quality of the initial decision making. One in five is wrong at the moment and that is fuelling a system in which people stay here waiting far too long for their final decision.

Question: That's a basic administrative issue, isn't it?

John Denham: Yes. The government needs to put more resources into the front end of the system. It will then save money on legal costs and asylum support further down the system.

Question: Is the current system too complicated?

John Denham: The new bill that's going through parliament will simplify the appeals system and will help considerably but there is still a need to ensure that initial decisions are much better.

Question: The committee's report also talked about integrated working methods. Isn't that the traditional call for joined-up government?

John Denham: The main issue which we've highlighted is the lack of integration between the decision making and the removal system.

At the moment a person can get a letter saying their asylum application claim has finally failed and that they have to leave the country, but no action may be taken for months, if at all.

We're suggesting there should be a system that makes very clear to people that if they get a 'no' they will leave the country very shortly afterwards - if necessary through a compulsory removal.

That needs to be addressed because at the moment we can't have confidence that those whose applications fail actually leave the country.

Question: So the reality is that people are staying for months?

John Denham: It's very difficult to prove, but we think it is likely that failed asylum seekers may well stay in the country and work illegally, which is the reason why we've highlighted a third concern - that we need tougher action against people who employ illegal migrants.

Question: You mention asset seizing as one option.

John Denham: That's right. The Proceeds of Crime Act enables a government agency to tax or confiscate the assets of people who live a criminal lifestyle. People who are gangmasters, who run dodgy employment agencies or contract cleaning companies for instance - those who knowingly employ illegal labour are living criminal lifestyles. We think they should be targeted.

Question: Wouldn't that be difficult to prove and subject to a very long legal process?

John Denham: Well, there are issues of evidence and certainly many on the committee believe that if we had a better identity card system that would help, but I don't think the government should simply say 'it's all too difficult'.

At the moment it is very difficult to track down individual, illegal migrant workers. They tend to lead a shadowy life. They live in fear and they're heavily exploited. The people who make the profits out of illegal labour generally live in big houses and pose as upstanding members of the community. They're easier to identify.

Question: Would ID cards and a system of work permits deal with a problem that's been going on for years and years?

John Denham: In my personal view, yes, but the committee didn't take a view on ID cards in this report because we're still conducting an inquiry on this subject and we didn't want to pre-empt our eventual findings. But my personal view is that ID cards would help considerably.

Question: Do you think officials have turned a blind eye to the problem because you're dealing with parts of the economy that are up against third world countries or tough supermarket prices?

John Denham: If people have, then they shouldn't have done. It doesn't make sense to be saying to the general public 'we are going to get on top of this problem of asylum and illegal migration' and then turn a blind eye to those who employ the very same people.

Question: The report also says it's been forgotten that we're dealing with people. Is that something that the government's forgotten?

John Denham: In general I think the government is aware of that but there are two groups of asylum seekers that we are concerned about.

The first group is the people who fall foul of Section 55 - a requirement that you make your application claim very shortly after you enter the country or you can't get benefit.

That has undoubtedly left people destitute even though they may have good cases for asylum.

On that, the government did announce some changes before Christmas to give people slightly longer to apply - and that might help - but we still want an independent review of how it's working.

Question: Won't that push more people into working illegally?

John Denham: Clearly, if people have no means of support the danger is that they will work illegally. And that's true of the second group of people we're concerned about.

This group comprises of people that have failed their asylum applications and have no right to be here. The government won't return them to their country of origin because of the political or conflict situation. The Democratic Republic of Congo is one example.

This is creating a pool of people who have no right to work, no right to benefits but who can't be returned home. They have to survive either on charitable handouts or almost certainly by working illegally.

We also want an independent review of their position but we suggest that if they definitely cannot be returned to their home country that they be given at least some temporary status, perhaps for a few months at a time, until the situation at home improves.

Question: The committee again raised the issue of border guards but doesn't focus on it. Is this no longer such a big issue?

John Denham: Some of the press coverage over the weekend gave the impression that our main concern was about border guards. That isn't true. This is, if you like, a small but important issue that needs to be addressed, but it's not a central one.

The issue is simply that at ports and airports there are a number of different services. Customs, Immigration, Special Branch and the Port Police. Two years ago we said their work could be better integrated.

We still think this is the case and we're pressing the government to act. It's not unimportant but I don't think we're pretending that bringing about that change would somehow transform the situation or even that it's the most important issue to be addressed.

Question: You don't think it would make a fundamental difference?

John Denham: No. It would mean that the people we have working in this area would be used more efficiently than they are at the moment. That would be worthwhile but I don't think it would make a fundamental change. For that you need to address the other issues that we've been talking about.