Select Committee on Home Affairs Additional Written Evidence


13.  First supplementary memorandum submitted by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, Home Office

As agreed at our meeting on 6 December 2005, I am writing to provide some further information on the following issues: cross-Departmental working on issues around migration (including how policies on meeting labour needs are determined, cross-departmentally); the size of the illegal population and information on illegal working; information/data sharing with EU countries and the funding of the Immigration Advisory Service. I am also including an update on the arrangements for legally aided assistance and advice to people in detention.

CROSS-DEPARTMENTAL WORKING ON MIGRATION ISSUES

  The Asylum and Migration Committee, chaired by the Prime Minister, exists to ensure cross-departmental working at the highest level on migration policy. Migration is an issue which cuts across many departmental responsibilities, which is why this new committee was set up to deal with it.

  The Home Office works closely with other departments on developing immigration policy. For example, in developing the new points based system for managed migration Home Office officials have worked with colleagues in the Treasury, Department for Work and Pensions (and Jobcentre Plus), Department for Trade and Industry, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, on assessing labour market needs and whether migration is an appropriate response. A good example of cross-departmental working is the monitoring of the Workers Registration Scheme, where information is gathered together from various different Government departments and coordinated by the Home Office before quarterly publication. While the Home Office runs the scheme, DWP economists have been involved in assessing its impact and have published a report on its impact on the labour market in the UK.

  Last year the Home Office announced the creation of the Joint Education Taskforce, the first high level debating platform for the UK education sector and Government departments (HO, DfES, FCO) on how immigration policy and practice impacts upon the education sector. The Taskforce has met nine times since its formation in May last year and has two workstreams dealing with issues such as policy, abuse and customer service. It has proven a very effective forum for engagement in constructive dialogue with the sector, particularly in developing proposals for a points-based system for managed migration.

  We continue to work closely with DfES on issues affecting the education sector and the recruitment of international students. This includes exploring mandatory accreditation of sponsors as a basic assurance of teaching quality and legitimacy as agreed by Bill Rammell and Tony McNulty recently.

SIZE OF THE ILLEGAL POPULATION AND ILLEGAL WORKING

  The Home Office Research report "Sizing the unauthorized (illegal) migrant population in the United Kingdom in 2001" was published on 30 June 2005 and estimated the illegally resident population in 2001 at 310-570,000. The method used in the report is based on a method devised in the USA, known as the Residual Method. The Residual Method is the only methodology that currently can sensibly be applied in the UK. It takes as its starting point the foreign born population recorded in the UK census conducted in April 2001 and then deducts an estimate of the foreign-born population here legally. The difference is an estimate of the number of unauthorized migrants.

  I should emphasize that the report produced a range of estimates using one possible methodology and the central estimate of 430,000 cannot be seen as an accurate or definitive figure. Indeed, no government has ever been able to produce an accurate figure for the number of people who may be in the country illegally, and that remains the case—by its very nature it is impossible to quantify accurately.

  Although it remains the fact that we don't and cannot know the actual size of the illegal population, the report estimate, even with the caveats, has helped us to understand the size of the challenge that we face. Our Five Year Strategy for Asylum and Immigration has clearly articulated our strategy for dealing with that challenge. Our strategy includes:

—    strengthening enforcement capacity and activity;

—    working in partnership with business to improve compliance; and

—    closer joint working between departments.

Strengthening enforcement capacity and activity

  Illegal working operations are a priority and we are increasing our enforcement capacity. In 2005, the UK Immigration Service carried out 2,850 enforcement operations against illegal work, as against 1,618 operations the previous year. Operations against illegal working are intelligence-led and contribute to our efforts to deliver targets for the removal of failed asylum seekers agreed by the Prime Minister. Activity is prioritised with that objective in mind. The measures to combat illegal working in the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill will enable us to deal more swiftly and effectively with routine cases of non-compliance, and allow the Immigration Service to concentrate its prosecution resources on the more serious cases.

Working in partnership with business

  The majority of UK employers are law abiding and we are keen to work with business to encourage compliance with the law on the prevention of illegal migrant working. Tony McNulty jointly chairs the Illegal Working Stakeholder Group with Gerry Sutcliffe, comprising key stakeholders from the UK's commercial sector, representatives of migrant workers and minority communities, who meet to discuss legislative and other practical ways to address illegal migrant working in the UK. IND is active in supporting businesses comply with the law through the provision of web-based guidance, an employers helpline, and educational visits by enforcement staff.

Closer joint working between Government departments

  The Immigration Service is leading the Joint Workplace Enforcement pilot (JWEP), which is exploring the scope for closer coordinated working, including intelligence sharing, between Government workplace enforcement departments to tackle both the use and exploitation of illegal migrant workers. The pilot draws together a co-located team of enforcement and intelligence officials from UKIS, HMRC, DWP, DTI, Health & Safety Executive and the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, to share information and co-ordinate operations against employers, employment agencies, labour providers and any type of business who are involved in the deliberate use or supply of illegal migrant workers. An initial evaluation of the pilot will take place shortly.

  Our involvement in joint working goes far wider than JWEP. We have established intelligence-sharing links with a range of other law enforcement agencies which are relevant to activity against illegal working. The Serious Organised Crime Agency will lead action against organised immigration crime, including where this involves the trade in illegal labour. We are also working closely with DEFRA and the Gangmaster Licensing Authority to establish the licensing arrangements for agricultural labour providers.

INFORMATION/DATA SHARING WITH EU COUNTRIES

  The Commission has produced a Communication entitled Improved effectiveness, enhanced interoperability and synergies among European databases in the area of justice and home affairs', which suggests how existing and future pan-European IT systems could more effectively support the EU's policies linked to free movement of persons and combating terrorism and serious crime.

  The Communication focuses on more comprehensive access to the Visa Information System, the Schengen Information System II and EURODAC, but also considers the creation of an entry/exit system and introduction of a border crossing facilitation scheme for frequent border crossers; a European register for travel documents and identity cards and creation of a European Criminal Automated Fingerprints Identification System.

  The Government considers it essential that EU databases operate effectively and are able to support policies related to free movement of persons as well as efforts to combat terrorism and serious crime. The Government also recognises that access to data should be balanced by strict compliance with the rules governing the protection of personal data and fundamental rights.

  The Government therefore welcomes this Communication as a helpful initial assessment of the efficiency of existing databases and their potential future uses, and will engage positively in the debate. The Government has not yet been informed of a timetable for discussions.

FUNDING OF THE IMMIGRATION ADVISORY SERVICE (IAS)

Background

  Historically the Immigration Advisory Service (IAS) received grant funding from the Home Office to provide representation at appeal for immigration and asylum appellants. In March 2000 the scope of that funding was expanded to include the provision of advice in connection with an asylum application to those detained at Oakington Reception Centre. Grant funding was provided under a statutory power available to the Home Secretary, most recently contained in section 110 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.

  When the Legal Services Commission (LSC) introduced a new funding regime for legal aid in January 2000 the IAS successfully bid for contracts to provide legal aid services. The scale of the services provided under contract was much larger than those provided under the previous scheme and the IAS significantly expanded the size of its operations.

  In the autumn of 2002 agreement was reached between the Home Office and the LSC that responsibility for all public funds provided to the IAS (and the Refugee Legal Centre) for legal services in England and Wales should be taken by the LSC. This reflected the fact that the primary role of the LSC was to buy publicly funded legal services and its funding regime was supported by a quality assurance and audit process. Ministers in the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department (as it then was) endorsed this agreement.

Revised Funding Arrangements from 2004

  The transfer of funding from the Home Office to the Legal Services Commission occurred on 1 April 2004. A commitment was given that the monies transferred from the Home Office would continue to be used by the LSC to buy services provided by the IAS (and the Refugee Legal Centre) for a period of two years, subject to satisfactory contract performance. Most of the money transferred (around three-quarters of the £20 million concerned that covered both organisations) was converted into contract income with the balance remaining as grant to meet head office infrastructure costs.

  As a result of the new arrangements the IAS started applying the statutory tests for the receipt of publicly funded legal services when determining a client's eligibility for help. These say that in addition to qualifying financially an applicant must also show that the merits of the case justify the grant of public funding. The application of the LSC means test to all publicly funded IAS casework meant that many of the immigration clients (not asylum clients) that the IAS may have previously provided a service to under Home Office funding were no longer eligible for a free legal help.

  Home Office funding did not, and was not intended to, provide free representation for all immigration appellants so there would always have been some appellants who would have been unable to access free publicly funded services. In the past decisions about who would receive free immigration advice were taken using IAS criteria whereas since 2004 the statutory criteria have been used. The view of DCA and LSC was that it was right that the criteria used in determining access to public funding for immigration and asylum cases should be the same as was used for other areas of legal aid. In particular the application of the LSC means test ensures that funding is made available to those most in need and is more likely to target those who are socially excluded.

  In October 2004 the LSC started discussions with the IAS and the Refugee Legal Centre about the funding regime that would be put in place at the end of the two-year period. The aim of the discussions was to agree arrangements that would help provide long-term security to both organisations and also provide best value for the public funding they were receiving.

Discussions on future funding regime

  Along with the transfer of funding, one of the main issues for the IAS has been the revised contractual arrangements for publicly funded immigration and asylum work that were introduced in April 2004. These included provisions limiting the amount of work that could be undertaken without reference to the LSC and requiring all appeal work to be approved in advance by the LSC. But both the IAS and the Refugee Legal Centre have a good record at appeal and were therefore given devolved powers to grant funding themselves. They were therefore relieved of some of the requirements of the new arrangements. However for the first time they are working to limits on the amount of time that they can spend on a case and this clearly took some time to bed in. The LSC had assisted the IAS by arranging training for staff in these contract provisions.

  The provision of grant funding for head office costs in addition to contract income means that the casework provided by the IAS costs significantly more than that provided by other suppliers. Also, while IAS is a charity and therefore not making a profit, the previous funding arrangements did not have sufficient scrutiny to ensure that money was utilised efficiently and effectively. Whilst in the past it could have been argued that this higher cost resulted in a better quality of service, the improvements in quality made more generally in the supplier base, through the introduction of accreditation and other measures, mean that this is no longer the case.

  Furthermore the lAS, and other suppliers, has to take account of the reduced demand for legal aid services in immigration and asylum work. The number of new asylum applications has dropped from a high of over 84,000 to 32,000 in 2004-05 and is likely to be nearer 30,000 in 2005-06. The Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill, currently going through Parliament, could also see a significant reduction in appeal rights for immigration clients. The reduced number of applicants means that there is greater competition between suppliers for clients.

  Despite the recent reduction in asylum numbers and legal aid expenditure, the income paid to the IAS has remained largely unchanged since the transfer of funding. In 2003-04 the combined income for services in England and Wales was £13.5 million whereas at the beginning of 2005-06 the planned income from the LSC was £17.2 million. There has subsequently been a reduction in income of £2.4 million as a result of the organisation being unable to meet its contracted hours together with a change in guidance on VAT.

Current position

  The LSC is currently working with the LAS (and the Refugee Legal Centre) to ensure that the hourly rate paid under the contract for casework is competitive with other suppliers. In addition to the contract income the intention is for the organisation to continue to receive grant income, albeit on a much-reduced scale, for the added value they provide to the sector. This will cover non-casework areas such as training, information and policy development.

  The LSC considers that the IAS and the Refugee Legal Centre are the backbone of future supply of publicly funded immigration and asylum advice and representation. Between them the organisations already account for almost one-third of LSC spending in this area of law. Both organisations are national suppliers, which creates efficiencies as clients move or are moved around the country. Both organisations also have good reputations for providing quality services to clients and as charities are motivated by the best interests of the client and not by profit.

  Negotiations between the LSC and the IAS to agree funding arrangements from April 2006 are ongoing. However, assuming agreement can be reached on the cost of providing casework services, the future of the organisation is secure as long as it can continue to provide the quality and quantity of contracted services.

LEGAL ADVICE PROVISION FOR THOSE IN DETENTION

  (This supplements the information on this subject provided in paragraphs 99-103 of the initial submission to the Committee in December 2005 by IND.)

  The Legal Services Commission is also currently piloting the provision of regular on-site legal advice surgeries to individuals who are detained in immigration removal centres. Surgeries are taking place twice weekly at the centres at Campsfield, Colnbrook, Dover, Harmondsworth, Tinsley House (Gatwick) and Yarl's Wood. The purpose of the surgery is to ensure that those who are in detention and who have not received legal advice or who no longer have a legal adviser and who require advice will be able to access advice through the pilot scheme. The scheme is open to all individuals who are detained. A central part of offering advice to those who are detained is to consider bail.

  It is anticipated that only very straightforward matters would be resolved during such a surgery session. In other cases the participant supplier would at the end of the session then:

—    take the matter on, as further investigation, advice or action was required (such as a bail application) or

—    refer the matter on to another supplier or

—    advise the client that no further action could be taken.

  The pilot commenced in December 2005 and is expected to last for six months. The pilot will then be evaluated in order to establish the effectiveness of an on site adviser scheme and whether it is the best way in which advice should be provided to those individuals who are subject to detention. If the evaluation identifies that the scheme is effective and necessary then a formal bid round will take place in which suppliers will be offered the opportunity to bid for a contract for such advice work.

Lin Homer

Director General

7 February 2006





 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2006
Prepared 23 July 2006