Select Committee on Home Affairs Additional Written Evidence

14.  Joint memorandum submitted by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, Home Office; UKvisas, Foreign and Commonwealth Office; and the Department for Constitutional Affairs

[Annexes not printed]

1.  NAMED DOCUMENTS REQUESTED

—    Pelham Review on work of immigration officers (referred to in evidence from PCS union, (para 11) is attached at Annex A. [not printed.]

—    Simms Review of the IND Customer Complaints Process (referred to in oral evidence from Dr Ann Barker, Chair, IND Complaints Audit Committee, 13 December 2005, Q26) is attached at Annex B. [not printed.]

—    Report outlining the findings of the Sectors Based Scheme, including the basis of the decision to terminate the SBS hospitality quota (referred to in written answer by Tony McNulty, HC Deb 4 July 2005, col 141 W) is attached at Annex C. [not printed.]

2.  STATISTICAL INFORMATION REQUESTED

  Numbers of applications for settlement refused as a result of the new TB tests in each of the pilot countries, with a breakdown by country and also into children and adults.

—    The Five Year Strategy for Asylum and Immigration outlined the Government's commitment to targeted health screening for TB in high risk areas. The current pilots are to test whether there are long-term health benefits for the UK.

—    Five adults have tested positive from the start of the pilots to the week ending 21 January 2006.

—    Children under the age of 11 are not tested.

—    All applicants applying for long term visas (over six months) are tested; the statistical information does not break down into category of applications eg settlement, studies.

—    The five people who tested positive did not go on to make a visa application so were not in fact refused. They were advised to seek treatment before applying for a visa.

—    The costs of the scheme are split between the UK Government and the applicants themselves: the UK pays for certain start-up costs; applicants pay a fee to cover the day-to-day running costs.

—    However, as the cost to the NHS of each individual course of TB treatment is approximately £6,000, the costs to the UK are quickly recovered.

—    For example, in Bangladesh, the potential £6,000 saved by the one applicant who has tested positive for TB represents over a quarter of the UK's costs. If this rate of identification continues, the costs to the UK of setting up the scheme in Bangladesh will be recovered after approximately four months.

—    It was always expected that a low percentage of people tested will have TB. But once the scheme is rolled out to a number of countries with high volumes of applicants, we can expect the savings to the UK produced by the scheme to increase enormously.

Country/post	Number Tested	Number Positive
Bangladesh (began 3 January 2006)	912	1
Dhaka	485	1
Sylhet	313	0
Chittagong	114	0
Sudan (began 18 December 2005)	47	0
Tanzania (began 17 October 2005)	438	0
Thailand (began 1 December 2005)	1,174	4*
Total	2,571	5
*  one person identified as having an abnormal CXR but failed to return for further tests; instead informed the office he had begun treatment for TB.

Number of refusals overturned following internal quality review procedures by management, both entry clearance and in-country decisions, latest five years.

UKvisas makes every effort to ensure that statistics produced from our "Central Reference System" are accurate. However, the complexity of our global business, including technical failures or occasional inconsistencies in data entry across any of over 150 offices, means we cannot 100% guarantee accuracy. UKvisas continues to work on IT and working practices to improve the quality of the statistics we provide.

2005-06 to date

2005-06	Total number of applications received	Total number of refusals	% refusal rate	Number of refusal decisions overturned by ECMs	%
April	226,267	40,262	17.8%	1,164	2.9%
May	254,842	43,412	17.0%	1,035	2.4%
June	325,735	53,398	16.4%	735	1.4%
July	253,723	50,227	19.8%	840	1.7%
August	236,869	49,678	21.0%	920	1.9%
September	203,050	48,573	23.9%	908	1.9%
October	161,378	37,831	23.4%	874	2.3%
November	168,305	36,292	21.6%	1,317	3.6%
December	149,737	32,909	22.0%	1,078	3.3%
Total	1,979,906	392,582	19.8%	8,871	2.3%

2004-05	Total number of applications received	Total number of refusals	% refusal rate	Number of refusal decisions overturned by ECMs	%
April	203,056	32,294	15.9%	377	1.2%
May	226,264	35,400	15.6%	569	1.6%
June	299,717	45,767	15.3%	776	1.7%
July	283,126	41,819	14.8%	831	2.0%
August	55,306	44,868	17.6%	921	2.1%
September	215,776	49,107	22.8%	805	1.6%
October	165,206	40,307	24.4%	777	1.9%
November	175,289	43,803	25.0%	576	1.3%
December	179,779	42,736	23.8%	810	1.9%
January	158,360	41,035	25.9%	641	1.6%
February	168,106	37,729	22.4%	739	2.0%
March	220,085	43,175	19.6%	988	2.3%
Total	2,550,070	498,040	19.5%	8,810	1.8%

2003-04	Total number of applications received	Total number of refusals	% refusal rate	Number of refusal decisions overturned by ECMs	%
April	158,911	22,628	14.2%	295	1.3%
May	189,447	24,260	12.8%	286	1.2%
June	241,386	31,641	13.1%	373	1.2%
July	263,815	34,611	13.1%	629	1.8%
August	200,602	32,759	16.3%	501	1.5%
September	191,982	35,509	18.5%	342	1.0%
October	166,671	28,035	16.8%	531	1.9%
November	148,445	24,960	16.8%	382	1.5%
December	159,732	28,708	18.0%	410	1.4%
January	152,752	29,200	19.1%	394	1.3%
February	146,324	27,599	18.9%	339	1.2%
March	202,528	34,778	17.2%	406	1.2%
Total	2,222,595	355,048	16.1%	4,888	1.4%

Administrative Review—PBS objectivity

—    The data above show the number of refusal decisions that were overturned when the Entry Clearance Manager (ECM) conducted a review. This is not an appeal but rather is an administrative check on the quality of refusals.

—    Under the points based system an administrative review process will be implemented. The details of the process will be worked out in collaboration with stakeholders but applicants will be able to request a formal review of their refusal where they believe a factual error has been made. It will provide people with a swift an effective means of challenging a decision. The points based system will greatly enhance transparency and objectivity in decision making, which will both aid people in making their applications and reduce the possibility for entry clearance officers to make subjective judgements.

  All local IND management information used here, unless otherwise stated or published source clearly identified, has not been quality assured and is not a national statistic. It should be treated as provisional management information.

—    Managed Migration Directorate, covering Work Permits (UK), Nationality and General Group have recently introduced quality sampling systems under which, approximately 2% of cases are quality checked prior to despatch of the proposed decisions to the applicant. The latest data (see table on page 14) indicate that about 3% of those sampled were assessed as incorrect. In such cases, the matter is remedied before the customer is notified of the decision.

—    In addition to this process, applicants may ask that a decision is reconsidered or may appeal.

—    In Work Permits (UK) statistics on reconsideration's have been kept since 2001. The below table gives details of the volume of requests received, the number of cases where the decision was overturned, where it was maintained or where the request was withdrawn.

Total Work Permit Approvals, Refusals and Review Decisions

	Decision	2001-02	2002-03	2003-04	2004-05	Total
In Country	Approved	51,050	67,978	74,669	74,994	268,691
	Refused	3,377	7,631	9,842	12,020	32,870
On Review	Overturned	386	485	556	193	1,620
	Upheld	629	1,816	2,262	2,122	6,829
	Request withdrawn	23	143	84	452	702
	Total	1,038	2,444	2,902	2,767	9,151
Out of Country	Approved	71,375	68,363	78,284	77,427	295,449
	Refused	5,392	9,566	12,691	14,401	42,050
On Review	Overturned	527	660	570	256	2,013
	Upheld	970	1,957	1,821	2,340	7,088
	Request withdrawn	27	143	72	452	694
	Total	1,524	2,760	2,463	3,048	9,795

  Source: Work Permits (UK).

Total Highly Skilled Migrant Programme Approvals, Refusals and Review Decisions

	Decision	2002-03	2003-04	2004-05	Total
Out of Country	Approved	742	2,530	4,731	8,003
	Refused	685	1,147	7,210	9,042
On Review	Overturned	17	24	125	166
	No HSMP Decision	3	12	0	15
	Upheld	4	33	744	781
	Request Withdrawn	0	2	41	43
	Total	24	71	910	1,005
In-Country	Approved	826	2,241	4,636	7,703
	Refused	602	730	2,580	3,912
On Review	Overturned	14	27	114	155
	No HSMP Decision	0	11	0	11
	Upheld	5	17	252	274
	Request Withdrawn	0	6	15	21
	Total	19	61	381	461

  Source: WP(UK) internal management information.

—    HSMP Reviews—There has been a substantial increase in the number of HSMP applications over the period, in particular, since October 2003 when the number of qualifying points was reduced from 75 to 65.

—    There has also been a change in the proportion refused, rising from 1,287 (45% of total decisions) in 2002-03 to 9,790 (51% of total decisions) in 2004-05.

—    The number of reviews requested has increased from 3% of refusals in 2002-03 to about 11% in 2004-05. The proportion of upheld decisions were 50 (38% of Reviews) in 2003-04 and 996 (77% of Reviews) in 2004-05. There are likely to be complex reasons for this increase including the nationality mix, improved casework guidance and measures, such as verification checks to tackle potential forged documents.

—    In Nationality requests for reconsiderations have always been considered. Statistics have been kept only since October 2005 on the volume received and the action taken. Between 1 October—31 December 2005 472 requests for reconsideration were received. Of these 267 decisions were overturned and 205 were maintained. Initial analysis of the reasons for overturning this number of decisions shows that in the majority of cases there was a delay in documentation being received by the Home Office or that the applicant had not received the request for additional documentation. Hence the original decision was made on limited information.

—    Reconsideration requests in General Group are dealt with as casework correspondence and no reliable statistics are available.

  Number of appeals by entry clearance post, with outcomes, latest 10 years. At a UKvisas User Panel meeting on 23 October 2003, which was attended by Chris Mullin MP (then Foreign Minister) and Fiona Mactaggart MP (minister in the Home Office) UKvisas were asked to collect data on family visit appeals from the 10 largest family visitor refusing posts. According to UKvisas the data was gathered but "never fully analysed due to pressure of work".

—    Data on family visitor appeals for the top 10 issuing posts is attached at Annex D. [Not printed.]

—    Analysis and policy development work is currently ongoing for family visitor appeals, in consultation with a wide range of stakeholders.

—    This exercise includes the collection of new data, which will be assessed to guide future policy and improve decision making quality. No data from this work is yet available.

Success rates of entry clearance appeals where appeals was on papers only, compared with those where there was an oral hearing, latest five years

—    Comprehensive information on all categories of entry clearance appeals in this format is not currently available. IND's Case Information Database and the AIT's ARIA database only began to differentiate between paper and oral hearings for entry clearance immigration cases following the AIT's commencement in April 2005

—    The AIT has recorded the proportion of family visitor appeals found in favour of the appellant for each year since 2000 for the adjudicator or immigration judge stage, which is as follows:

Year (1April—31March)	2000-01	2001-02	2002-03	2003-04	2004-05	2005 (Apr-Sep)
Paper Hearing	32%	39%	39%	38%	37%	31%
Oral Hearing	64%	71%	66%	58%	57%	52%

—    The information for the period 2000 to 2004 is taken from the database of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal's (AIT) predecessor, the Immigration Appellate Authority (IAA). The provisional information for 2005 is taken from the database of the AIT and is for the period running from April to September 2005.

Number of appeals raising race discrimination allegations, latest 10 years

—    The Race Relations (Amendment) Act (RRA) came into force on 2 April 2001 and race relations complaints relating to immigration decisions have been brought before the IAA (now AIT) from that date. The RRA as amended is currently facilitated by Part 5 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.

—    Information on the total number of appeals brought before the appellate body since 2001 alleging race discrimination is not currently available and could only be obtained by a manual investigation of individual cases.

—    This is a feature of the appeal process in so much as allegations of race discrimination in the making of an immigration decision are in the main subsidiary grounds of argument within an asylum or entry clearance appeal. The volumes of free standing race discrimination appeals to the AIT have been extremely low with none being received between April and the end of September 2005.

Number of immigration appeals and asylum appeals dealt with in the absence of a Home Office Presenting Officer (HOPO), latest 10 years

—    Figures relating to Home Office representation at appeal are only available from 2002. For the 12 month period to August 2003, the Home Office was not represented in up to 28% of appeal lists.

—    The rate of unrepresented appeal lists rose to around 35% in late 2003 and early 2004.

—    IND has worked to deliver substantial improvements since then.

—    The breakdown of representation for all AIT hearings is as follows:

Representation rates April 2005 to January 2006	April	May	June	July	August	September	October	November	December	January
No of Hearing Outcomes—Case Management Review	1,091	2,152	2,405	2,112	2,054	1,749	1,599	1,861	1,170	1,577
% HO Rep Rates	92.50%	97.50%	97.90%	98.20%	99.50%	99.40%	99.70%	99.40%	99.50%	99.90%
No of Hearing Outcomes—Immigration Judge Hearing	1,154	3,634	5,719	5,997	5,162	5,291	5,450	5,956	4,864	5,093
% HO Rep Rate	67.8%*	83,8%*	88.7%*	92.10%	96.00%	95.00%	97.20%	96.80%	95.60%	97.90%
No of Hearing Outcomes—Panel Hearing (Legal)	28	50	36	36	276	298	322	344	106	42
% of HO Rep Rate	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%
No of Hearing Outcomes—Panel Hearing (Legal/Non Legal)	428	455	455	520	362	348	420	626	623	752
% HO Rep Rate	96.00%	94.10%	98.50%	98.70%	98.30%	98.30%	99.30%	99.70%	99.70%	100.00%

  Source: IND Internal Management information.

  *  These records are subject to data quality issues related to changes in the appeal system.

Number of immigration appeals and asylum appeals in which a HOPO appeared but made no submissions, latest 10 years

—    This information is not available on the Case Information Database. Information on the submissions made by either party (or lack thereof) would only be available by studying individual appeal determinations.

Number of adjournments requested by each side in immigration appeals and in asylum appeals, number agreed, and length of adjournment, latest year

—    The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal have provided the following confidential internal management information on proportions of granted adjournments at substantive hearings.

—    The higher rates of adjournment seen in reconsideration hearings following the commencement of the AIT, in comparison with adjournment rates of previous IAT appeals, is a reflection of the two stage reconsideration process set out in the AIT's practice directions.

—    The first stage of a reconsideration hearing is to identify whether the original Tribunal decision contained an error of law. Where it is agreed that there is an error of law the appeal will be adjourned to allow the Tribunal to reconsider the appeal. The apparent rise in adjournments is due to this systemic change, therefore, and is not an indication of more appeals simply being adjourned.

—    A proportion of the cases will be heard throughout the regional centres of the AIT dependent upon the location of the appellant and their representative.

	Adjudicator	Tribunal Appeal
2003-04	Adjournments	Adjournments
Asylum	18%	10%
Immigration	12%	12%

	Adjudicator	Tribunal Appeal
2004-05	Adjournments	Adjournments
Asylum	18%	8%
Immigration	10%	4%

2005-06 (Apr-Sept)**	Immigration Judge Adjournments	Reconsiderations Adjournments
Asylum	17%	32%
Managed Migration	14%	24%
Entry Clearance	6%	16%

  *  Information is for substantive hearing adjournments only.

  **  Information for 2005-06 is provisional only.

—    ARIA, the AIT database, does record the total number of adjournment requests made since April 2005 together with the appeal party making the request. However, the relevant information currently has a range of data quality issues which are unlikely to be resolved before the end of the current business year (end of March 2006).

—    The following report categorises the number of calendar days from a hearing being adjourned to a new hearing date being allocated for different hearing types. The information was not collated prior to the commencement of the AIT in April 2005.

Calendar Days from Adjourned Hearing date to new hearing date

	Immigration Judge			Reconsiderations
2005-06 (Apr-Sept)**	Less than 7 Days	Between 7 and 14 days	Over 14 Days	Less than 7 Days	Between 7 and 14 Days	Over 14 Days
Asylum	2%	13%	85%	3%	1%	95%
Managed Migration	2%	13%	85%	11%	2%	87%
Entry Clearance	2%	13%	85%	2%	2%	96%

  *  Information is for substantive hearing adjournments only.

  **  Information for 2005-06 is provisional only.

  Percentages may not sum due to rounding.

  Information is not available for the period prior to 2005-06 financial year.

  Number and percentage of unrepresented applicants in (a) the immigration appeals system generally; (b) bail applications; and (c) immigration judicial review cases, latest five years

—    Providing accurate information on unrepresented appellants is made difficult by the fluid nature of representation. Appellants may begin the appeal process with representation and find themselves unrepresented further into the appeal process.

—    The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal have provided internal management information on the levels of represented and unrepresented appellants for the periods 2003 to the end of March 2005.

—    The information provides a snapshot of the proportion of appeal records in each appeal category for which a representative has been entered onto the AIT's electronic database.

—    It is not an indication of the proportion of appellants appearing with or without representation at a substantive appeal or onward hearing.

2003-04	Adjudicator		Permission to Appeal to the Tribunal		Tribunal Appeal
	Represented	Unrepresented	Represented	Unrepresented	Represented	Unrepresented
Asylum	81%	19%	85%	15%	90%	10%
Immigration	78%	22%	87%	13%	90%	10%

2004-05	Adjudicator		Permission to Appeal to the Tribunal		Tribunal Appeal
	Represented	Unrepresented	Represented	Unrepresented	Represented	Unrepresented
Asylum	69%	31%	68%	32%	89%	11%
Immigration	74%	26%	84%	16%	91%	9%

—    A similar snapshot covering the period the 2005—2006 business year will not beavailable until the end of the current business year.

Number of judicial review permission applications, with outcomes, and substantive hearings, with outcomes, in immigration (non-asylum) cases, latest 10 years (ie a table comparable to Table 7.3 of Home Office Asylum Statistics UK 2004 p 60)

—    The Admin Court have provided the following information based on internal management information.

	Applications for permission to apply for Judicial Review—Immigration Non Asylum
	Applications	Decisions	of which: granted permission to apply	Percentage of applicants granted permission to apply
1996	459	178	39	21.9%
1997	483	376	101	26,9%
1998	441	334	84	25.1%
1999	306	249	62	24.9%
2000	304	261	73	28.0%
2001	231	195	30	15.4%
2002	268	225	14	6.2%
2003	206	159	34	21.4%
2004	377	237	39	16.5%
2005	742	357	53	14.8%

	Applications for permission to apply for Judicial Review—Immigration Asylum Only
	Applications	Decisions	of which: granted permission to apply	Percentage of applicants granted permission to apply
2005	2,336	1,582	166	10.5%

The outcome of Judicial Review Hearings—Immigration Non Asylum
Allowed		Dismissed		Withdrawn
Total	as % of total determined	Total	as % of total determined	Total	as % of total determined
9	40.9%	6	27.3%	7	31.8%
30	23.3%	14	10.9%	85	65.9%
18	19.6%	12	13.0%	62	67.4%
9	15.8%	14	24.6%	34	59.6%
25	27.8%	20	22.2%	45	50.0%
8	24.2%	13	39.4%	12	36.4%
1	11%	5	55.6%	3	33.3%
1	10.0%	7	70.0%	2	20.0%
2	33.3%	3	50.0%	1	16.7%
3	20.0%	12	80%	0	0.0%

The outcome of Judicial Review Hearings—Immigration Asylum Only
Allowed		Dismissed		Withdrawn
Total	as % of total determined	Total	as % of total determined	Total	as % of total determined
22	44.9%	26	53.1%	1	2.0%

  Source: Admin Court Internal Management Information.

Number of statutory review applications, with outcomes, in immigration cases and asylum cases separately, monthly since 2003, and outcomes of Tribunal appeals following statutory review

—    Internal management information based on data held on Statutory Reviews within the Case Information Database is as follows:

			Dismissed		Allowed
	Years	SR Sought on Date	Vol	%	Vol	%	Total vol
Asylum	2003	January	10	90.91	1	9.09	11
		February		0.00	3	100.00	3
		March	2	66.67	1	33.33	3
		April	2	40.00	3	60.00	5
		May	4	57.14	3	42.86	7
		June	1	33.33	2	66.67	3
		July	1	25.00	3	75.00	4
		August	7	70.00	3	30.00	10
		September	45	71.43	18	28.57	63
		October	70	84.34	13	15.66	83
		November	77	81.05	18	18.95	95
		December	98	79.67	25	20.33	123
	2004	January	95	84.07	18	15.93	113
		February	110	79.71	28	20.29	138
		March	163	79.13	43	20.87	206
		April	87	77.68	25	22.32	112
		May	95	83.33	19	16.67	114
		June	101	82.11	22	17.89	123
		July	108	86.40	17	13.60	125
		August	113	77.93	32	22.07	145
		September	128	81.01	30	18.99	158
		October	147	84.48	27	15.52	174
		November	188	82.10	41	17.90	229
		December	162	79.80	41	20.20	203
	2005	January	108	89.26	13	10.74	121
		February	186	86.92	28	13.08	214
		March	163	75.12	54	24.88	217
Asylum Total			2,271	81.05	531	18.95	2,802
Immigration	2003	January	1	100.00		0.00	1
		June	1	100.00		0.00	1
		October	3	75.00	1	25.00	4
		November	3	75.00	1	25.00	4
		December	3	100.00		0.00	3
	2004	January	1	33.33	2	66.67	3
		February	3	100.00		0.00	3
		March	9	90.00	1	10.00	10
		April	4	100.00		0.00	4
		May	5	100.00		0.00	5
		June	2	66.67	1	33.33	3
		July	3	75.00	1	25.00	4
		August	7	100.00		0.00	7
		September	2	100.00		0.00	2
		October	4	80.00	1	20.00	5
		November	5	50.00	5	50.00	10
		December	20	83.33	4	16.67	24
	2005	January	7	70.00	3	30.00	10
		February	17	80.95	4	19.05	21
		March	18	75.00	6	25.00	24
Immigration Total			118	79.73	30	20.27	148
Grand Total			2,389	80.98	561	19.02	2,950

  Source: IND Internal management information.

—    There was insufficient time available to cohort these Statutory Review outcomes with subsequent Tribunal outcomes.

  Number of applications for reconsideration of AIT decisions, and renewal of such applications, with outcomes, in immigration cases and asylum cases separately, broken down according to whether the application came from the Government side or the individual, monthly since April 2005

—    The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal have provided the following internal management information on the onward appeal stages applicable to the current appellate body (the AIT) for the relevant period and its predecessor the Immigration Appeals Tribunal for the years 2003 to end of March 2005. It was not possible to categorise the applications according to those brought by the Home Office and those brought by appellants.

2003-04	Permission to Appeal to the Tribunal		Permission to Appeal to the Tribunal Outcomes
	Receipt	Decisions	Granted	Refused	Withdrawn
Asylum	34,903	33,941	36%	64%	0%
Immigration	2,255	2,093	44%	55%	1%

2004-05	Permission to Appeal to the Tribunal		Permission to Appeal to the Tribunal Outcomes
	Receipt	Decisions	Granted	Refused	Withdrawn
Asylum	27,018	29,354	29%	71%	0%
Immigration	4,994	4,759	32%	68%	1%

2005-06 (April-Sept*)	Review Application (Filter Mechanism)		Review Application (Filter Mechanisms) Outcomes*
	Receipt	Decisions	Granted	Refused	Withdrawn
Asylum	8,901	13,320	22%	78%	0%
Managed Migration	2,786	3,158	24%	76%	1%
Entry Clearance	380	745	31%	69%	0%

  *  Outcome figures for 2005-06 are provisional only and refer to hearings after 4 April. Decisions in 2005-06 include cases heard by Adjudicators prior to 4 April 2005.

  Decisions do not necessarily relate to receipts in the period.

  Recent internal estimates of numbers of overstayers, and categories in which they were here.

—    The Home Office published an estimate of the unauthorised/illegal population in the UK in a report published in June 2005. This estimate was produced using a residual method: estimating the size of the legal migrant population in the UK in April 2001 and subtracting this from the total foreign-born figure obtained from the 2001 Census. Using the Residual Method, the total unauthorised population living in the UK in April 2001 has a central estimate of 430,000. This estimate is made up of illegal entrants, overstayers and failed asylum seekers but, due to the method used in estimating the unauthorised population, it is not possible to separately identify the number of overstayers included in this estimate.

Number of tip-offs of irregular migrants made annually to IND; number investigated; number substantiated; number of people removed as a result—latest 10 years.

—    IND receives around 18,200 written "tip-offs" per year and between 60-80 telephone allegations per day. Until recently there was no specific system in place for handling telephone and e-mail allegations.

—    In June 2005, a process to properly filter allegations from members of the public was set up. They are now centrally recorded, considered and disseminated for IND intelligence units to act upon at the earliest possible opportunity.

—    It is not possible therefore to estimate how many of these allegations were acted upon and the subsequent outcome. It would be misleading, however, to draw adverse inferences from any lack of operational response to the allegation received. In many cases, the detail provided is insufficient or there is no corroborating information to warrant action. Many fall outside IND's business priorities, or by taking action, we might breach IND's obligations under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act or our duty of care to the public. In some cases, the risk of collateral intrusion is too high.

—    However, even where no action is taken, the information is added to the IND intelligence database, Mycroft. This is helping to increase the body of knowledge that IND has about all areas of abuse of the system and may, where appropriate, be used at a later date.

—    E&R internal unpublished records show that in the Financial Year 2005-06, from 1 April 2005 until 5 February 2006, 1891 persons were arrested wholly or partly as a result of denunciatory information of whom 690 (37%) were failed asylum seekers.

Removals—statistics separately identifying number of non-asylum forced removals and voluntary departures, and asylum forced removals and voluntary departures—latest 10 years.

—    Attached at Annex E is the most recently published information relating to persons removed from the UK over the last 10 years.

—    The first table relates to persons removed from the UK broken down by persons refused entry at port and subsequently removed, persons removed as a result of enforcement action and persons leaving under AVR programmes.

—    The second table is a breakdown of the persons removed as a result of enforcement action by the type of action initiated against them.

3.  OTHER MATERIAL REQUESTED

Latest internal guidance for ECOs on decision-making for different categories, including manual of Best Practice (not DSPs)

—    We are working on putting a disclosable version of Best Practice guidance before the inquiry as soon as possible.

Performance data on quality of initial decision-making by ECOs and IND (non-asylum), latest five years

Entry clearance

—    UKvisas' management information systems do not yet support detailed statistical data on the quality of initial decision-making by ECOs. However, since the publication of the 2004 National Audit Office Report Visa Entry into the United Kingdom: The Entry Clearance Operation, UKvisas have embarked on a substantial programme of work in respect of decision-making. This includes the reorganisation of the department's core structure, to create a group of three teams whose remit is to improve the quality of decision-making (Control Quality, Systems Quality and Decision Quality, under the heading of Entry Clearance Quality). The Decision Quality Team's Action Plan is attached at Annex F. [Not printed.]

—    One indicator of performance improvement is appeal success rate. However, as the 2004 NAO report showed, many appeals are determined in favour of the appellant on the basis of evidence that was not available to the entry clearance officer (see p 37 of the NAO Report at Annex G). [Not printed.]

—    Part of the programme of work now underway in UKvisas is in response to the findings of the NAO as to why decisions are overturned at appeal:

1.  Additional evidence. The appellant provided new evidence not available to the entry clearance officer, for example, evidence of available funds: 34%

2.  Role of the sponsor. The support of the appellant's sponsor can substantiate the credibility of the applicant's claim and provide confirmation of family ties: 23%

3.  Different judgement. The adjudicator formed a different view of the same evidence; in particular, the adjudicators disagreed with the entry clearance officer's view on the appellant's credibility or intention to return to their home country: 20%

4.  Decision not in accordance with immigration rules. The adjudicator concluded that the original decision was not framed within the immigration rules: 14%

—    Part of the programme of work to improve decision quality in UKvisas is in response to the findings of the NAO but appeal outcomes alone are not necessarily significant or comprehensive as an indicator of decision quality. [Not printed]

—    Work undertaken in response to the NAO report includes: arranging for Presenting Officers to travel to overseas posts on detached duty (officers selected and due to take up posts in the near future); and Presenting Officer Quality Assurance feedback forms (attached) to be completed (began January 2006). Attached at Annex H are summaries of Presenting Officer feedback for July and August 2005.

—    The points based system will also eliminate a much of the subjectivity in decision making. Both applicants and entry clearance officers will assess applications on the same criteria. The system will also place more emphasis on the role of sponsors, for instance an offer letter from an approved education institution will be a proxy for intention and ability to study under the existing rules.

—    The Independent Monitor for Entry Clearance reports on entry clearance refusals that do not carry a full right of appeal. The role of the Monitor has recently been enhanced to become a full time post and reports will be submitted twice-yearly. The Monitor's reports include recommendations, which are assessed and implemented where appropriate. The reports may be found via this link:

http://www.ukvisas.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1006977150169

Managed Migration (in-country)

—    Statistical data on the reasons for appeal determinations is not collected centrally.

—    In contrast to entry clearance appeals, appeals brought in the UK should consider all circumstances up to the date of the appeal hearing, whether or not the evidence was available to the decision maker. For example, an appellant should submit any human rights issues as additional grounds to their appeal, even if these issues were not presented with the original application. In the past a considerable amount of time has elapsed between the date of initial decision and the appeal hearing, which means that an appellant's circumstances have often changed a great deal by the time their appeal is heard. This means that appeal outcomes are not a true indicator of decision making quality.

—    The introduction of the unified appeals system under the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal and Reasons for Refusal Letters in Managed Migration has speeded up the process for handling non-asylum appeals. Work is currently underway, though in the early stages, to use feedback about appeal hearings and outcomes to improve initial decision making for non-asylum casework.

—    Although appeals outcomes are not statistically assessed, the quality of initial decisions is internally checked and data is presented below:

IND Non-asylum Casework Decisions—Percentage of Cases Quality Assessed with Correct Decision

	Qtr 4 2004-05	Qtr 1 2005-06	Qtr 2 2005-06	Qtr 3 2005-06
General Group	99%	95.3%	96.3%	96.4%
Work Permits (UK)	N/A	88.2%	97.2%	97.5%
Nationality	99%	98.2%	99.2%	98.9
Managed Migration	99%	94.9%	97.1%	97.0%

—    Prior to the last quarter of 2004/05 statistics were not kept in General Group on the percentage of cases quality assessed with the correct decision. Quality monitoring and assessments were conducted in casework teams as part of the management process and no central records were kept.

—    Quality assessing started in March 2005 in Work Permits (UK).

—    Around 22,000 decisions have been included in the quality sampling exercises since the last quarter of 2004-05. This is approximately 2% of the total number of decisions made.

Performance data on processing time for non-chargeable applications—including longest time taken—latest five years.

General Group Non-Charged Performance against Targets	1/08/03— 31/03/04	1/04/04— 31/09/04	1/10/04— 31/03/05	2005-06 YTD
3 weeks	50.35%	24.01%
13 weeks	79.71%	51.35%
20% in 3 weeks			26.63%
25% in 13 weeks			46.63%
25% in 4 weeks				28%
30% in 14 weeks				63%

  Source: Balance Scorecard and internal management information.

  Note: General Group targets for non-charged work.

	8/2003— 3/2004	4/2004— 9/2004	10/2004— 3/2005	04/2005 to date
Non—charged general casework			20% in 3 weeks 25% in 13 weeks 95% PEO 24 hours	25% in 4 weeks 30% in 14 weeks 95% PEO 24 hours

  There are no statistics available for 2001-02 and 2002-03.

—    The longest processing time for a non-charged application in the last five years is 840 days (or 579 working days). However this application involved a person from Malawi suffering from a medical condition and applying for further leave to remain under Human Rights legislation. Such cases involve detailed review and the need to obtain medical evidence and consider country specific information. At the time of this application there were limited casework resources and cases were taking longer to decide than we would wish. The case was refused with a right of appeal.

  Source: Local management information.

  Details of levels of internal fraud or corruption, and of recent investigations into allegations of this (eg recent sex-for-visas allegations) with outcomes, latest five years.

—    Annual Statistics from the IND Security and Anti-Corruption Unit are attached at Annex I. [Not printed.]

Latest analysis of cohorts of applicants throughout the entry clearance/immigration application and appeals process.

—    No IRSS validated data is available. Internal management information covers intake and refusals with and without a right of appeal. Appeals data for in-country non-asylum appeals is not broken down by comparable casework categories.

Latest internal assessment of costs and practicalities of introducing a unique reference number.

—    Development of IT enabled means of tracking cases across the different departments and time zones involved in immigration control has focused in recent years on improving IND caseworking, IT, data sharing with UK visas and meeting the cross cutting departmental requirements of single tier appeals. Hence there is no recent assessment of the costs and practicalities of introducing a unique reference number.

Staff: analysis of current IND and UKvisas pay levels vs. responsibility; numbers of staff by grade; levels of staff turnover by grade.

—    A Table is enclosed at Annex J, which sets out the main grades in the Immigration Department and the total average number of permanent staff between 1 October and 31 December 2005. [Not printed.] The number of staff who have left and the wastage rates for the grades is also shown. In addition, IND also employs agency staff in order to provide flexibility and the level of these is about 10% of the permanent complement.

—    The pay scales for the non Agency Home Office are also enclosed at Annex J. [Not printed.] There is no difference in the pay scales for the grade levels across the non-Agency Home Office (IND and the Core) according to area or type of work. For example, all staff working as an AO will be paid on the same payscales irrespective of the role that they are carrying out, for example an AO caseworker in Managed Migration will be on the same pay scales as an AO in the Public Enquiry Office. All staff carrying out roles in the same location at the same grade will be paid on the same payscale.

—    There is an element of differentiation in pay level between the different geographical locations and these are shown in the pay scales attached. The categories are; London pay, national pay and Gatwick pay. The first of these is paid to staff employed in the Greater London Area. The second rate is paid to all staff outside the Greater London Area with the exception of Gatwick; the third is paid to staff working at Gatwick Airport. In addition to that pay difference there are three levels of locational allowances, which are paid at the following rates;

—  Inner London—£2,915 (this increased from £2,600 in July 2005).

—  Intermediate—£1,650 (this increased from £1,470 in July 2005).

—  Outer London—£1,190 (this increased from £1,060 in July 2005).

—    In general, staff will begin at the bottom of the relevant pay scale and work their way up through the scale through pay progression as part of the Annual Pay Review.

—    UKvisas is a joint Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Home Office directorate responsible for managing the UK visa operations world-wide.

—    The terms of the MoU establishing UKvisas sets out the need to recruit equally from the Home Office and Foreign Office.

—    Staffing of visa-issuing posts is divided into ring-fenced and non-ring-fenced. Ring-fenced posts are where the officer concerned is involved in 90% or over entry clearance-related work. Non-ring-fenced posts cover anything less than 90% entry-clearance-related work, eg 50% ECO: 50% vice-consul; 50% ECM: 50% consul. Home Office staff seconded to the FCO only work in ring-fenced posts.

—    Figures are attached at Annex K showing numbers of staff by grade, both ring-fenced and non-ring-fenced. [Not printed.] Home Office staff seconded to the FCO are paid in accordance with their home department salary scales. FCO salary scales are provided here; HO salary scales are provided by IND HRD.

—    Specific information about the level of staff turnover by grade is not available. In general terms, for example, Entry Clearance Managers and above (including the senior management team at visa-issuing posts overseas—Directors of Visa Services, Deputy Directors of Visa Services and Regional Operations Managers) are posted for a period of three to four years and Entry Clearance Officers are posted for two to three years, depending on the post. There is usually an option to extend an extra year at post and many officers do apply for this extension. Many officers also apply to extend beyond this. UKvisas does however experience difficulties in recruiting staff for some locations, such as Pakistan and Nigeria, and are examining alternatives.

Latest internal assessments of impact of outsourcing parts of the visa application process

—    29 overseas posts have now out-sourced elements of the visa application process in response to an accelerating increase in demand, the rate of growth having increased significantly over the past three years.

—    UKvisas' outsourcing partners undertake routine administrative work such as data entry, collecting fees and checking that application forms are correctly completed. This supports the risk management process by freeing up time for enhanced checks, so the process is more efficient and decision-making is more effective.

—    In response to the 2004 NAO Report (attached above) we have undertaken a review of the impact of all streamlining initiatives, including outsourcing. It is hoped that this Report will be available for the Committee within the period of their review.

Analysis of current workload pressures in the different sectors of IND (including asylum) and UKvisas and implications this has on the speed and accuracy of processing applications

—    On Asylum, there has been a steady and sustained fall in both intake and cases awaiting decision. Key quality and timeliness targets have been met. Intake reduction measures have been successful and the reduction in intake has allowed some staff to be re-deployed to assist other areas of the business.

—    Statistics for the year 2005-06 are not yet available. So far in 2005-06 we are on target to achieve the objective of making more than 75% of asylum decisions in two months. Figures up to the third quarter of 2005-06 show that we continue to make more decisions than applications, and the backlog continues to fall.

—    There are no specific accuracy measures, however, 80% of refusals were upheld at appeal in the first three quarters of 2005-06 and we are working closely with UNHCR on quality issues and are on target to achieve the quality objective of 85% of criteria assessed by both internal and external assessors as being fully effective or better.

	Total Applications	Initial Decisions	Backlog	Appeals Upheld	Decisions within2 months
2004 Q2	7,915	11,710	13,100	78%	83%
2004 Q3	8,615	11,195	10,200	80%	82%
2004 Q4	8,480	8,450	9,700	81%	77%
2005 Q1	7,015	8,045	8,300	81%	78%
2005 Q2	6,220	7,290	7,000	80%	77%
2005 Q3	6,315	6,515	6,100	78%	N/A

  Figures supplied are for the last full year 2004-05 and the latest figures available for 2005-06. All data is provisional.

% criteria assessed as fully effective or better (Target 80%)	Internal assessors	External Assessors
2003-04	85%	81%
2004-05	88%	84%

  Quality data is only provided on a full year basis but performance so far in 2005-06 indicates that the 85% target will be maintained.

—    Attached at Annex L is a report into Visa Demand 2005-06 and Beyond. [Not printed.]

—    Attached at Annex M is a summary of workload pressures in UKvisas. [Not printed.]

In General Group the workload pressure is reflected in the statistics for intake, output, work in progress and turnaround times. These are measured separately for charged and non-charged work. The position since the introduction of charging on 1 August 2003 is:

In addition please insert these amended tables (some figures have been altered).

Charged

	1/08/03—31/03/04	1/04/04—31/03/05	1/04/05—YTD (9 Months)
Intake	259,879	335,955	280,591
Output	234,794	309,244	256,812
Work in progress (end of year)	11,492	19,978	25,614*
Postal three weeks %	77.03%	62.09%
Postal 13 weeks %	93.72%	87.25%
Postal four weeks %			63%
Postal 14 weeks %			89%
PEO 1 day %	99.14%	97.76%	97%

  *  Note: this is higher than at the end of March 2005 because the autumn surge is still working through the system. The work in progress traditionally peaks in December with lower intake levels in Spring generating a reduction in the March figure for work in progress.

Non-Charged

	1/08/03—31/03/04	2004-05	2005-06—YTD (9 Months)
Intake	123,940	126,774	87,804
Output	199,737	106,978	92,437
Work in progress (end of year)	18,600	32,623	40,821
Postal three weeks %	50.35%	25.25%
Postal 13 weeks %	79,71%	49.19%
Postal four weeks %			28%
Postal 14 weeks %			63%
PEO 1 day %	94.06%	96.95%	80

—    Elsewhere in this summary is outlined the ongoing work to ensure that quality of decision-making is maintained and enhanced in the face of rising demand.

—    Note: General Group targets for charged and non-charged work. Targets amended from 10/2004 to include payment processing time (one week).

	8/2003—3/2004	4/2004—9/2004	10/2004—3/2005	4/2005 to date
Charged general	70% in 3 weeks	70% in 3 weeks	70% in 3 weeks	70% in 4 weeks
casework	100% in 13 weeks	100% in 13 weeks	85% in 13 weeks	90% in 14 weeks
	100% PEO 24 hours	100% PEO 24 hours	98% PEO 24 hours	98% PEO 24 hours
Non-charged general			20% in 3 weeks	25% in 4 weeks
casework			25% in 13 weeks	30% in 14 weeks
			95% PEO 24 hours	95% PEO 24 hours

—    An indication of the seasonal effect of intake on the speed and accuracy of processing applications is illustrated by the following table and graphs.

	Apr 2005	May 2005	Jun 2005	Jul 2005	Aug 2005	Sep 2005	Oct 2005	Nov 2005
Charged 2005-06
70% 20 working days	72%	76%	72%	62%	63%	64%	54%	65%
85% 70 working days	85%	88%	87%	92%	89%	89%	88%	89%
95% PEO 24 hours	97%	97%	98%	97%	95%	96%	96%	96%
Non-Charged 2005-06
25% 20 working days	26%	26%	27%	33%	31%	27%	24%	30%
30% 70 working days	43%	46%	41%	55%	56%	62%	63%	65%
95% PEO 24 hours	52%	91%	92%	83%	82%	85%	87%	93%

  Source: IND website 6 February 2006.

  Source: IND website 6 February 2006.

—    Work is at a frictional level in Work Permits (UK) and there are currently no backlogs in any of the workstreams. All service standards are being met. Quality assessment of cases between July—December 2005 show that the percentage of cases with the correct decision made during this period is 97%

—    As of 31 January 2006 the WIP in Nationality Group stood at 62.421. This is after the exceptionally large influx of applications prior to the Life in the UK testing on 1 November 2005. During the month of October 2005 56,785 applications were received; normal intake averages around 15,000 per month. Since this surge, new intake has been low and the work in progress will quickly be reduced in the coming months.

—    The target of deciding 60% of applications in three months is currently running at 56% and the percentage of correct decisions made is being maintained at 98.9%

—    In Asylum Directorate there has been a steady and sustained fall in both intake and backlogs, and key quality and timeliness targets have been met. There are no immediate concerns for speed and quality of application processing. Intake reduction measures have been successful and the reduction in intake has allowed staff to be re-deployed to assist other areas of the business. However these resources remain available to asylum should the situation change.

—    Statistics for the year 2005-06 are not yet available. So far in 2005-06 we are on target to achieve the objective of making more than 75% of asylum decisions in two months. Figures up to the third quarter of 2005-06 show that we continue to make more decisions than applications, and the backlog continues to fall.

—    There are no specific accuracy measures, however, 80% of refusals were upheld at appeal in the first three quarters of 2005-06 and we are on target to achieve the quality objective of 85% of criteria assessed by both internal and external assessors as being fully effective or better.

	Total Applications	Initial Decisions	Backlog	Appeals Upheld	Decisions within 2 months
2004 Q2	7,915	11,710	13,100	78%	83%
2004 Q3	8,615	11,195	10,200	80%	82%
2004 Q4	8,480	8,450	9,700	81%	77%
2005 Q1	7,015	8,045	8,300	81%	78%
2005 Q2	6,220	7,290	7,000	80%	77%
2005 Q3	6,315	6,515	6,100	78%	N/A

—    Figures supplied are for the last full year 2004-05 and the latest figures available for 2005/06. All data is provisional.

% criteria assessed as fully effective or better (Target 80%)	Internal assessors	External Assessors
2003-04	85%	81%
2004-05	88%	84%

—    Quality data is only provided on a full year basis but performance so far in 2005-06 indicates that the 85% target will be maintained.

  In particular, reports, memos and emails on workload pressure and implications of this on speed and quality of decisions in the posts in Accra, Lagos, Islamabad and New Delhi.

—    Attached at Annex N are some emails we have been able to retrieve [Not printed.]. We continue to search through files and will forward any further information to the Committee Clerk as quickly as possible.

—    Although demand has slowed over the last six months, until July 2005, demand had increased by 55% over the past four years. We process 90% of straightforward applications within 24 hours, a performance which none of our overseas competitors match.

—    In order to meet demand, UKvisas has been introducing streamlining measures over a number of years, to minimise delays and queues so that applicants with a good immigration history can have their applications processed quickly. These measures include postal, courier-assisted and online options, as well as outsourcing processes where staff at outsourced visa-application centres are able to take care of the routine administrative work such as data entry, collecting fees and checking that application forms are correctly completed.

—    A range of measures is being implemented to improve decision quality overseas, including pilots to review refusals prior to Entry Clearance Officer (ECO) decisions, decision quality teams, strengthening post-decision review prior to appeal despatch, and better ECM quality control of appeal statements. The new regional operations managers will play a key role in delivering decision quality to medium and smaller posts. Additional staff have been funded to deliver this range of decision quality tools and ECO and ECM training has been enhanced with particular emphasis on decision quality.

Advice and guidance to ECOs and ECMs on how to respond to workload pressures, both general and in the posts in Accra, Lagos, Islamabad and New Delhi.

—    Attached at Annex O is a Telegram issued to "All Entry Clearance-Issuing Posts" (an "AECIP") on Streamlining, issued August 2002 [Not printed].

—    Attached at Annex P is guidance on Streamlining, incorporated into Best Practice (2003 version) [Not printed].

—    Attached at Annex Q are two AECIPs, on Decision-making Quality and instructions on the latest staff bidding round, to take into account staffing needs for enhanced quality of decision-making [Not printed].

Instances of UKvisas suspending applications from some categories of applicant in certain locations to manage demand, latest five years.

—    Suspension of visa services in Pakistan: the Mission in Islamabad was evacuated in mid-2002 due to the threat of conflict between India and Pakistan. The Visa Section re-opened a few weeks later with a skeleton staff and a limited service. As more staff arrived, post gradually opened up and entry clearance officers resumed applicant interviews in August 2003. By early 2004, post were accepting all applications except first time visitors under 30 and WHMs. Throughout this period, post refurbished and remodelled the office accommodation to adapt it to outsourced processing. On 1 May 2004, post opened to all applicants but WHMs, although because of staffing constraints the service was once again restricted to exclude first time visitors under 25. By May 2005, backlogs had largely been eliminated and post resumed a full service (except WHMs) on 1 August 2005. The intention remains to resume full service to all categories as soon as is operationally possible.

—    Suspension of visa services in Nigeria: by March 2005, demand significantly exceeded capacity: the visa sections in Nigeria were dealing with 120% more applications than the previous year (in Lagos, 150% more). Refusal rates for first time applicants were running at 80%, with extremely high incidence of forgery and fraud. Although streamlining measures had been implemented in posts, reinforcing staffing levels further was prevented by accommodation constraints. An estimated 6000 applicants per month were unable to submit applications due to posts' inability to meet the unprecedented demand. The service for first time visitors between the ages of 18 and 30 was therefore suspended, to enable resources to be allocated to dealing with priority, lower risk applicants. UKvisas are now proposing to manage a phased return of the service to all applicants in Nigeria, once posts are operationally able to deal with the additional workloads, by Spring 2006.

—    Suspension of visa services—Working Holiday Makers: visa services in respect of Working Holiday Maker applications were suspended for operational reasons in Kuala Lumpur, Colombo, Windhoek and Gaborone in March 2005, following changes to the Working Holiday Maker rules in August 2003. This led to high numbers of abusive applications at a number of Commonwealth posts and a consequential and detrimental effect on posts' ability to process their normal workloads. The four posts have now cleared their backlogs and are once again able to meet their PSA targets. Consideration is being given to lifting the restriction where a satisfactory returns agreement, set out in a formal Memorandum of Understanding with the UK, exists.

Internal assessments and reports on main areas and levels of abuse of immigration control, based on IND intelligence material/briefings (including evidence of recent abuse of ancestral route from Zimbabwe).

—    The Immigration and Nationality Directorate Intelligence Service (INDIS) was established to identify, prioritise and monitor threats to the immigration control and to facilitate targeted action to counter abuse through the development and timely use of strategic and tactical intelligence assessments. INDIS also provides expert support to IND and other agencies in all areas of travel document abuse through the INDIS National Document Fraud Unit (NDFU). INDIS works closely in partnership with relevant internal and external stakeholders, to both target abuse and to strengthen existing immigration controls both in the UK and overseas. Intelligence packages are developed against organised crime groups and disseminated to UK law enforcement agencies and international partner agencies for appropriate action. INDIS is a major stakeholder in Reflex, the Government's multi-agency strategy for tackling organised immigration crime, and will provide the "single gateway" for IND into the new Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) due to commence operation from 1 April 2006.

—    INDIS provides support and guidance for the IND national Tasking and Co-ordinating Group (TCG) structure producing monthly threat assessments that identify threats to the UK immigration control, including those from organised immigration crime. A monthly strategic assessment produced for IND Senior Directors lists the main risks to IND's Control Strategy, sets out any counter measures already in place to tackle these risks and highlights any intelligence gaps that need to be addressed. Specific areas of risk are highlighted monthly and are supported by a weighted nationality risk assessment with relevant intelligence on the top ten "risk countries" identified. INDIS intelligence assessments support strategic and tactical decision making at the IND front line and support the overarching Home Office strategy to make IND an effective intelligence-led organization. INDIS is currently leading on the development of a longer-term harm reduction strategy for all operational areas of IND in line with the White Paper "One Step Ahead: a 21st Century Strategy to Defeat Organised Crime" (2004) which challenged all those engaged in fighting organised crime to develop a new approach based around tackling the underlying problems.

—    In addition, INDIS produces a monthly risk assessment in support of the Ministerial authorisation under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act which is monitored by the independent Race Monitor established by Parliament. The INDIS risk assessment allows front line officers to scrutinise passengers on arrival to a greater or lesser degree depending on the nationality of the document they hold and supports the operation of an intelligence-led control whereby low-risk traffic is not delayed unduly and identified abuse amongst high-risk nationalities can be given a more appropriate degree of scrutiny.

—    Countries covered by the assessment are determined by a set level of abuse in both absolute and proportionate terms. They are included if they record more than 50 breaches of law or adverse decisions in total and more than five for every 1,000 people admitted. The length of the list has fluctuated over time but usually contains around 45 countries and continues to meet the operational needs for which it was designed. This higher risk group represents approximately 30% of non-EU citizens travelling.

—    With regard to the question about evidence of recent abuse of the ancestral route from Zimbabwe, over the last year there have been 204 applications for entry clearance in this capacity and 12 applications were refused.

—    Approximately 600 Zimbabwean UK Ancestry applications were put on hold from 23 July 2004 to 22 November 2005 because abuse was suspected. The abuse was with regard to fraudulently used documentation. On 22 November 2005, caseworking consideration was resumed. The majority of cases, around two thirds, were granted or refused. One third of cases required further enquiries to be made.

—  Of these, approximately 50% will be subject to greater scrutiny because they rely on suspect documents. The other 50% are being required to re-submit the documentation showing the link to a British grandparent so we can check whether these are abusive. These enquiries would not normally be made in such applications and the further delay and differential treatment requires authorisation. An authorisation under section 19D of the Race Relations Act 1976 therefore came into force on 17 January 2006 to enable IND to handle these settlement cases.

—    All other Zimbabwean UK Ancestry cases are being processed as usual.

  Analysis by officials of effectiveness of current IND policy and practice on tackling abuse eg overstaying, working without permission, abuse of marriage route.

—    There is a clear methodology for analysing trends and making interventions where there is potential for abuse. Spikes of abuse are clearly visible when analysing the data and the impact of interventions shows either the levelling off or decline in the previous peaks.

—    A monitoring and reporting framework has been developed for Managed Migration, and has been in operation since mid-2004. This includes the information required to measure progress, manage performance and make interventions. This framework routinely pulls together information from across the business, informed by intelligence and frontline feedback, and is collectively assessed and analysed on a regular basis to spot trends and issues. This enables identification of areas where intervention may be necessary.

—    Data is collated from several sources and transferred to a Migration Analysis Tool (MAT). It is then subject to an in-house sense check which checks that the data in MAT is consistent and appropriate. Further analysis then takes place based on frontline feedback and intelligence provided by the business.

—    Analysis and Interpretation Meetings (AIMS) are then held with other stakeholders to discuss main themes from the document and to make recommendations for action to the Tactical Tasking and Co-ordination Group (TCG).

—    The AIM output consists of: an executive summary slide providing recommendations and headline commentary on key developments, a summary heat map of problem areas, a summary heat map showing impact of interventions and 10-25 slides of data analysis making recommendations plus commentary.

—    The data shows what is happening to migrant flows and abuse (by country, category and point on the delivery chain), shows the impact of actions taken by taskforces and helps to prioritise resources. The data collection system is designed to be complete, rapid and accurate.

—    The system focuses on "high risk" countries; these are countries for which the risk of organised or large scale abuse is considered high. The system also keeps a lighter watch on other countries in case they should become "high risk". As a starting point 17 countries were categorised as high risk. These were all those considered to be a high risk for asylum and all countries singled out as a particular risk by the taskforces. The categorisation is reviewed and countries potentially added or removed from the list.

Analysis by officials of how recent changes to marriage and student applications have affected levels of applications and abuse.

—    Under Section 24 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, registrars have a duty to report suspicious marriages to IND. The number of reports increased since the duty was introduced in 2001, peaking at 3,578 in 2004. Certificates of approval for marriage were introduced on 1 February 205 to combat the reported abuse. Since the Certificates of Approval requirement came into force this figure has reduced substantially—with just 161 reports received between 1 February and 30 November 2005.

—    In order to qualify for a certificate of approval a person subject to immigration control must be able to show that they have been granted more than six months leave and have at least three months of that leave outstanding at the time of the application. This new provision is intended to make it more difficult for those who are seeking to enter into a marriage for the purpose of avoiding immigration control to do so. In addition by requiring individuals to have more direct contact with the immigration authorities as part of the marriage procedure it was envisaged that they would have a deterrent effect on these persons.

—    In addition to the changes in the Immigration Rules, dedicated marriage caseworking teams have been set up and a number of high profile targeted enforcement operations aimed at sham marriage fixers and participants have resulted in convictions. During the financial year 2004-05 there were 100 people arrested in connection with taking part in or arranging sham marriages in the London area. Of these 59 were charged and 49 were given custodial sentences of up to nine years.

—    To tackle abuse in the student route the Education and Training Providers register, which is run by DfES was introduced on 1 January 2005. DfES estimates that between 200-300 colleges, probably non-genuine, were not able to meet the requirements for registration, and so were no longer able to attract international students.

—    Prior to this, between April and December 2004 the Student Task Force visited 1,218 educational institutions and 314 (25%) were found not to be genuine. The Task Force continues to carry out compliance visits where adverse information or intelligence is received about a provider on the register or where the DfES make a request for more information about a provider. Where sufficient evidence of abuse is discovered a college can be removed from the register. Of the 43 colleges visited in 2005, 17 were removed from the register.

—    Since June 2004 education providers have been encouraged to voluntarily report discontinuation of study to IND. Approximately 100 institutions currently report to the Student Task Force on a monthly basis, many as part of a pilot to gauge the feasibility of adopting a more widespread reporting requirement as part of the points based system for students.

—    The findings are currently being analysed. Recommendations will be considered for discussions with the education sector. These recommendations will also inform the wider development of the Points Based System,

Details of how enforcement resources are currently targeted—eg how many enforcement officers are working on different areas of abuse.

—    To ensure compliance with the National Intelligence Model (NIM), enforcement agencies such as IND's ERD are set priorities in accordance with a Control Strategy which itself is created by reference to a Strategic Assessment.

—    Within the NIM, the Tasking and Co-ordinating Group is the mechanism by which work is assessed, considered and deployed. These Groups sit at National, Regional, Assistant Director's Command and Local Enforcement Office level (LEO), and are invariably chaired by the individual who has overall control of the deployment of the staff within that area (eg the National TCG is chaired by the Director of ERD, and at LEO level by the HM Inspector in charge of that office).

—    Once the priorities are set, appropriate work is then presented by the intelligence officers to the appropriate Tasking and Co-ordinating Group and the work is passed to the enforcement arm (the "Tactical Response") for action.

—    In Enforcement & Removals Directorate all proactive work is now monitored nationally by the National Operations Diary (Nodmv) system, which carries details of the numbers of staff deployed and on which type of work. This indicates that in the period April to December 2005 enforcement officers were deployed as follows:

Residential addresses (including family removals)	68.1%
Illegal Working operations	26.7%
Miscellaneous	5.1%
Student Abuse	0.1%
Marriage Abuse	0.1%

(internal unpublished data)

Current internal guidance to enforcement officers on investigating breaches of immigration control.

—    Internal Guidance to enforcement officers on investigating breaches of immigration control is available in the Operational Enforcement Manual. This is available on the website and in hard copy for officers working in the field eg at police stations. In addition to the manual, interim operational instructions and staffing communications are issued as necessary and are incorporated into the manual if they introduce policy changes which are permanent. The manual is subject to continuous review and is updated to reflect changes in policy, case law or legislation.

Reports from the joint workplace enforcement team which was due to start work in September 2005 (Home Office, Selective Admission: Making Migration Work for Britain—a Consultation Document, paras 6.41-6.42).

—    The Government is seeking to develop closer joint working between departments responsible for enforcing workplace regulations, and as part of this we are piloting a new approach in the West Midlands. The Joint Workplace Enforcement Pilot (JWEP) will explore the scope for closer co-ordinated working between Government workplace enforcement departments to tackle both the use and exploitation of illegal migrant workers.

—    The pilot (launched on 5 September 2005) draws together a co-located team of enforcement and intelligence officials from Government departments responsible for enforcing a range of workplace and employment regulations. Details of the participating departments and their role in the pilot are as follows:

Dept	Post	Role
Immigration Service	1 x Police Inspector	Manages team
	1 x Immigration Officer	To promote compliance with and enforce law on prevention of illegal working
	1 x Analyst	To provide analysis of the work of the JWEP and baseline illegal working activity in the area
HMRC	2 x Revenue Officers 2 x Customs Officers 1 x NMW Officer	To promote compliance with and enforce law on PAYE, National Insurance, VAT and National Minimum Wage
DWP	1 x Intelligence and Analytical Officer	To promote compliance with and enforce law in relation to benefit system
DTI	1 x Employment Agency Standards Officer	To promote compliance with and enforce law on conduct of employment agencies
Health and Safety Executive	1 x Health and Safety Officer	To promote compliance with and enforce health and safety legislation
Gangmasters Licensing Authority	1 x GLA Officer	To promote compliance with and enforce law on gangmaster licensing

—    The pilot is also supported by the police, CPS, Office of Immigration Services Commissioner, Defra and local authorities.

—    The pilot team is intelligence-led, and will 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. The pilot's focus is on prosecutions as well as other general "disruption" of activity (eg the administrative removal of employees from the UK, withdrawing VAT registration, etc).

—    Since its launch, the JWEP team have shared intelligence and in December the team commenced full operational activity.

—    The pilot is currently the subject to an initial evaluation, which will assess the team's activity to date, progress towards developing a more effective approach to intelligence sharing, lessons drawn from the experience of the pilot so far, and early recommendations.

—    The initial focus of the team's activity has been to explore the scope for sharing intelligence within existing legal powers about non-compliant businesses of interest to participating departments. Early indications are that significant progress has been made in producing a clear and auditable process, compliant with the National Intelligence Model, for the sharing of intelligence within the JWEP environment. The adoption of common standards for the handling of intelligence by participating departments has increased the flow of intelligence between departments within the pilot, resulting in better planned enforcement activity, both jointly and unilaterally, by participating departments.

—    At the time of writing, the pilot team had carried out one joint enforcement operation resulting in the arrest of nine illegal workers and the commencement of investigations by other participating departments. Six other joint operations are at the planning stage, with all of the targets having been fully researched and the premises visited to identify resource requirements. The pilot is still at a relatively early stage, but is already yielding positive results and we will be looking closely to establish whether there are any improvements in practice that could be applied more widely to improve the effectiveness of Government workplace enforcement activity.

A copy of the memo sent by Yvonne Evans of IND on 10 November 2005, instructing immigration officers in the London area not to detain suspected illegal entrants not previously known to the authorities due to the need to preserve space for failed asylum seekers awaiting deportation (as reported in the Daily Mail, "Secret Amnesty on Immigration"—5 December 2005), plus any connected memos and details of any similar instructions issued elsewhere in the country.

—    There has only been one memo of this kind, which is Yvonne Evans' memo, this is attached at Annex R. [Not printed.]

—    The press article in the Daily Mail refers to officers having been ordered not to detain suspected illegal entrants and that immigrants are being encouraged to "disappear" while they are queuing to claim asylum, this is simply not the case. In order to maintain and improve our removals performance, it is only right that we direct the focus of all resources available to us to achieve the best possible result. This does not mean that officials are directed to "turn a blind eye" when a person is detected, although they are encouraged to consider alternatives to detaining people, where it is considered appropriate, and to explore the use of new technologies for maintaining contact with people once they have been detected or have made an application for asylum, such as electronic tagging and voice recognition.

—    There are difficulties faced by, not only the UK, but other countries, in trying to return foreign nationals who do not have a legal basis to remain, to their country of origin. We are committed to overcoming any obstacles that prevent a person being removed, in order that those who come to the UK and remain legally, and the British public, feel assured that the system has integrity and that we have control. The Government has made it clear that it will take a robust approach to removing people from the country where they have no legal right to be here.

Latest proposals for regulation of overseas immigration advisers, as outlined in the Five Year Strategy:

—    As set out in the initial submission from the Home Office, the Immigration and Nationality Directorate are looking at options to regulate overseas advisers. Officials are working on proposals, in consultation with the Office for the Immigration Services Commissioner, and will be putting forward initial proposals shortly.

eBorders programme: latest cost-benefit analysis of biometric visas and electronic entry/exit control:

—    Preliminary work on the cost/benefit analysis on the introduction of an electronic entry control system was completed in the early part of 2005. These cost/benefit figures were designed purely to test the viability of proceeding with the development work in this area.

—    Further work has been commissioned to examine in more detail the biometric requirement necessary, the profile of passengers who might benefit from its introduction, and implementation plan. The preliminary work indicated that savings in the region of £130 million (discounted) over 25 years could be achieved if the vast majority of EU/EEA nationals with biometric travel documents utilised an electronic entry control system.

—    The early benefits centred around more efficient use of staff on the control, faster transit of passengers through an automated immigration control, particularly those who pose minimal risk to the control.

—    An electronic embarkation control will allow a number of agencies to have the facility to monitor and intercept where necessary those leaving the UK, and will avoid the need for the re-introduction of manned control, and provides greater certainty of the numbers of passenger movements from the UK.

BIOMETRICS—    On 7 February 2005 the UK Government announced its five-year strategy for asylum and immigration entitled "Controlling our borders: making migration work for Britain". The aims of the measures described within the strategy are to:

—    "Ensure that only those who benefit Britain can come here to visit, work or study;

—    Strengthen the UK's borders;

—    Crack down on abuse and illegal immigration;

—    Increase removals."

—    A key feature of the strategy is that by 2008 the UK will introduce biometric checks as part of the visa issuing process. The UK Government has also committed to a European Union regulation requiring finger-scanning to be included in the visa application process.

—    In support of the asylum and immigration strategy UKvisas established in April 2005 the UKvisas Biometrics Programme to achieve a fast, effective and comprehensive biometrically enabled visa system, helping to create a secure and integrated border control. The Programme will increase the integrity of the immigration process by assuring the identity of visa applicants and make a crucial contribution to the fight against international terrorism and organised crime.

Progress and plans

—    To prove the concept of introducing biometric matching as part of the visa application process the UKvisas Biometrics Programme has already established 11 operations in nine targeted countries. This has been delivered in nine months and represents a significant achievement by the Programme providing vital experience and knowledge to enable global implementation. It has been widely recognised, in particular at a ministerial level, that these operations have made a valuable contribution towards the Government "tipping target". Due to their demonstrable success these initial "trials" have been carried forward and biometric matching is now established as an integral part of the visa application process in these nine countries.

—    Having proved the viability and benefits of introducing biometric matching the UKvisas Biometrics Programme must now build upon these successes by developing and implementing a robust and sustainable business process and systems to deliver its contribution towards delivery of the 5-year strategy for asylum and immigration. Ministers remain committed to implementing biometric visa operations globally by the end of 2007. This is a large, complex and demanding task.

Approach

—    To assure deliverability, reduce risks and control costs the UKvisas Biometrics Programme has developed a Business Operating Model and Commercial Model that minimises the scope of business change, makes maximum use of existing systems and infrastructure, wherever possible deploys proven technical solutions and provides assurance of value for money though the use of existing commercial arrangements.

—    The Programme has established close liaison with related IND, Home Office, Police and wider UK Government initiatives that utilise biometric identity management technology. The Programme has been proactive in developing collaborative relationships to create a consistent and compatible approach to procurement and technology and assure that future benefit can be derived from the data asset created by the UKvisas Biometric Programme. Central to this approach is the proposal to utilise a shared biometric storage and matching database.

—    The introduction of biometric visa operations is already making a real difference to the integrity of visa decisions in the nine countries where it has been introduced. It is vital that these benefits are realised throughout the UKvisas network. The Programme will make an essential contribution to the realisation of the benefits currently being quantified by the PMCS Alignment of IND Major Programme Benefits Project. Whilst this SOBC does not seek to attribute proportionate benefit to the UKvisas Biometrics Programme the realisation by IND of the full benefits of the Programmes contributing to the PMCS project is wholly contingent on the successful implementation of biometric visa operations.

Deliverability

—    Programme management processes, procedures and structures have been developed and implemented that are consistent with recognised best practice as defined in OGC Managing Successful Programmes Guidance and PRINCE2 methodology. In order to assure the availability of appropriate skills and expertise the Programme has recruited a mixed team of civil servants, consultants and contractors to fill all key posts.

—    This SOBC demonstrates that the proposed Business Operating Model and Commercial Model are affordable and sustainable within the £70 million capital funding allocated to the UKvisas Biometrics Programme and future operational budgets of UKvisas. In order to assure realism in cost estimates Optimism Bias has been factored into all budgetary assumptions in line with HM Treasury Green Book guidelines. Full budgetary details and assumptions are appended to this SOBC.

Programme assurance

—    In May 2005 OGC undertook a Gateway 0 review of the UKvisas Biometric Programme. The OGC reviewers endorsed the approach proposed by the Programme and attributed a highly positive AMBER rating to the Programme. The recommendations of the OGC review were accepted and implemented. Consistent with OGC advice the UKvisas Biometrics Programme will not be undertaking Gateway 1-5 reviews but will repeat Gateway 0 reviews at strategically important events or stages in the Programme. The next review is planned for March 2006.

Conclusion and Way Forward

—    This SOBC demonstrates that the UKvisas Biometrics Programme will deliver a vital component of the UK Government five Year Asylum and Immigration Strategy through the delivery of a fast, effective and comprehensive biometrically enabled visa system, helping to create a secure and integrated border control. The Programme will increase the integrity of the immigration process and make a crucial contribution to the fight against international terrorism and organised crime.

—    In order to secure timely delivery of these benefits the UKvisas Biometrics Programme now requires JAC to endorse the strategic approach set out in this SOBC, approve the transfer of necessary funding to FCO, and recommend to the Home Office Group Investment Board that the Programme proceeds without delay.

—    The SOBC has been submitted to the Joint Approvals Committee (JAC) and is due for hearing on the 10th February. It is also currently with the Group Investment Board (GIB) assessors and set for a GIB hearing on 16th March although this may become 31 March due to the number of items on the GIB agenda.

—    Following this we are aiming to develop the Full Business Case for JAC submission mid-year.

  Latest cost-benefit analysis of proposed financial bonds to be deposited against departure, as mentioned in the Five Year Strategy.

—    The costs of the proposed system of financial securities are likely to vary significantly depending on the particular system introduced and the categories of applicant to whom they are applied. It could, therefore, be very misleading to give indicative costs at this stage. Moreover, some of the potential costs are likely to be incurred anyway as they form part of work which has already been started. The work on electronic borders, for instance, which will allow complete exit records to be made for those here temporarily, is an example. A recent National Audit Office Report ("Returning Failed Asylum Applicants", 11 July 2005, Appendix 2) gave the unit cost of the enforced returns process for failed asylum applicants and other immigration offenders as £11,000 per removal. It may not be possible to apply forfeited securities directly to the costs incurred in tracing and removing such individuals because of the general rules about the treatment of income generated by departments. In any case, we would expect the main benefits to be in managing down the rate of non-return in migration routes that have a problem of this kind. The Government will shortly be publishing its views on developing a system of financial securities in its response to the public consultation on the points based system of managed migration.

Analysis of labour market needs which was used in devising the approach of the Five Year Strategy to labour migration, including research on the demand for temporary workers referred to in HC Deb 10 January 2006 col 56WH:

—    The five year strategy identified that a large number of entry routes had developed over the years making the system very complex. The system was not designed as a whole to meet specific labour market objectives and its complexity makes it difficult to flex the system to deliver specific outcomes.

—    The fundamental driver for change therefore was to simplify the system and produce a more objective and transparent system to target the migrants who bring most benefit to the UK. It was intended that labour market needs should be identified by employers, with the proposed Skills Advisory Body additionally identifying occupations in particular shortage where it will be easier for employers to bring in migrant workers. The most skilled migrants will be able to enter under Tier 1 without a job offer.

—    The on-going development of the Tiers of the new system is underpinned by the evidence on the known economic benefits which migrants, especially higher skilled migrants, bring to the UK. In the case of the lower-skilled routes, the period since EU accession in May 2004 has also provided evidence of the degree to which labour market needs are being met in some sectors from this new source of labour.

—    Some of the research/data sources of relevance include:

"The Local Labour Market Effects of Immigration in the UK", (C Dustmann et al, Home Office On-line report 06/03, 2003).

"The Migrant Population in the UK: A Fiscal Analysis" (C Gott and K Johnston, Home Office, 2002).

"Migrants in the UK: their characteristics and labour market outcomes and impacts" (C Dustmann et al, RDS Occasional Paper 82, 2002).

"Paying their Way: The Fiscal Contribution of Immigrants in the UK"; (Institute for Public Policy Research, April 2005).

Survey of Job Vacancies, ONS.

Labour Force Survey (data on wages, qualifications of migrants and non-migrants).

Trend Growth: Recent Developments and Prospects (HM Treasury, April 2002).

Accession Monitoring Report May 2004-December 2004 (Home Office, DWP, IR, ODPM).

—    The DEFRA/Home Office research referred to in the Commons debate on the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme is:

"Temporary Workers in UK Agriculture and Horticulture" (Precision Prospecting Ltd, 2005).

Latest internal guidance on when and how to carry out race equality impact assessments on immigration policy proposals:

—    Please see chapter 5 of the IND Race Equality Scheme (available on the HO website) attached at Annex S. [Not printed.]

Analysis of costs of different categories of handling in-country immigration applications which led to the setting of fees at current levels; and comparison with costs of categories of entry clearance applications and fees:

—    The Immigration and Nationality Directorate's (IND) fees recover the costs associated with a range of applications for immigration decisions and associated work. We have charged for nationality applications for many years. Fees for Work Permits and Leave to Remain (LTR) were introduced in 2003.

—    Fees are set following HM Treasury guidelines on full cost recovery principles.

—    Full cost is defined as the total costs of all resources used in providing the service, both direct and indirect, including a full and fair allocation of overheads.

—    The costs are assessed against forecasts of the likely volumes of applications for each product type. Demand can vary, as with any dynamic and fast changing business.

Comparison of UKvisas and Managed Migration fees.

—    UKvisas and IND are two very different businesses, governed by two different regulatory regimes and functioning on independent cost bases. Managed Migration is wholly UK based, with UKvisa's operations substantially based in posts overseas, supported by a relatively small UK central base.

—    A comparison of the costs is made difficult for this reason and full information is not yet available. However attached at Annex T is "The Methodology for calculating the Proposed Student Visa Fee" which contains a detailed cost breakdown of the proposed student fee, and attached at Annex U is breakdown of the Leave to Remain fee. [Not printed.]

Total costs incurred by UKvisas in handling visa applications and appeals, broken down by location and by type (eg staff costs, accommodation, IT and telecoms, producing forms and leaflets etc).

—    This information is not yet available and will be forwarded to the Committee as quickly as possible.

Additional costs relating to visa and entry clearance work but incurred by Home Office, eg processing of appeals, and how these are apportioned or recharged to UKvisas to ensure full costs of entry clearance operation are captured.

—    IND does incur some costs on activities which support UKvisas' operations. Transactions with UKvisas' customers range from enquiries to corrections, but these are almost impossible to quantify on a scaleable basis and they are therefore not recharged in UKvisas' fees. We deal with the customer at the point of contact wherever possible, in the interest of operational efficiency and customer service.

—    Some Managed Migration fees include an apportionment of the costs of appeals. These are not included in UKvisas' fees.

—    UKvisas does not currently recover any appeal costs through the visa fee. However, end-to-end costs of the immigration control and how these are recovered will be examined as part of the new consultation on charging for the Points Based System later in the year.

Average overall cost of refusing entry clearance compared with granting it.

—    UKvisas are unable to compare the cost of allowed vs. refused applications.

Average overall cost of an immigration judicial review case

Judicial Review stage reached	Average cost (2004)
Application for permission (considered on the papers)	£146
Renewed application for permission (heard in open court)	£284
Substantive review hearing following initial application	£643
Substantive review hearing following renewed application	£780

The average cost at each stage includes the salary costs of the judiciary and court staff in a non asylum judicial review. The figures do not include accommodation, other administrative costs such as stationery, telephone calls etc or corporate overheads (including human resources, finance, IT)

Average overall cost of an immigration appeal.

—     The AIT has provided the following forecasted unit costs for different immigration appeal types for the 2006-07 financial year.

—    The forecasted average unit cost for each appeal type comprises the administrative, judicial & operational costs of the AIT appeal process from taking receipt of the appeal form to the final decision.

—    The unit cost does not include average legal aid funding for each appeal type, costs incurred by appellants and respondents, or DCA corporate overheads (including Human Resources, finance, IT).

Forecasted Unit Cost by Appeal Type	2006-07
Managed Migration	£790
Entry Clearance	£626
Family Visitor (Oral hearing)	£509
Family Visitor (Paper hearing)	£328
Legal Aid for Asylum and Immigration 2004-051

  Number of cases completed at initial application stage:

—    solicitors—47,082

—    not for profit agencies—6,256

—    total—3,338

Number of cases completed at the first appeal or review stage:

—    solicitors—32,424

—    not for profit agencies—2,584

—    total—35,008

Value of payments made:

—    solicitors—£103,670,698

—    not for profit agencies—£31,348,000

—    total—£135,018,698

  The figures represent cash payments made during the financial year and cover all work undertaken on the initial application and on any appeal. It is not possible to identify the cost of appeals or reviews alone. The figures do not relate to work done exclusively within the period and may include cases billed in 2004-05 for work conducted (wholly or mainly) before April 2004. Contracting arrangements allow payments to be claimed at defined stages or billing points in the case for work done up to that point. Any work undertaken after that point will form the basis of a further claim which means that cases may be reported twice at initial application and twice at first appeal or review. For these reasons it is not possible to produce a reliable average case cost.

Immigration and Nationality Gross Bills Paid 2004-05

	Bills paid
	Number	Amount	Average cost
Judicial Reviews*	1,778	£4,558,731	£2,563.97
Statutory Reviews	399	£499,541	£1,251.98
Special Immigration Appeals Commission	1	£94,344	£94,343.58
Other Immigration Appeals**	235	£1,234,052	£5,251.29
Total Civil Representation	2,413	£6,386,668	£2,646.77

  *  Includes all cases within the immigration category.

  **  May include applications for habeas corpus, etc.

Overall Asylum and Immigration Legal Aid Expenditure

Year	Expenditure (resource based)
2003-04 (Actual)	£181 million
2004-05 (Actual)	£103 million
2005-06 (Projected)	£97 million
2006-07 (Projected)	£92 million
2007-08 (Projected)	£87 million

  1  All figures relate to asylum and immigration work combined, it is not possible to separate out data for immigration matters alone.

  Arrangements for provision of Legal Aid is provided at Annex V [Not printed].

INFORMATION ON STUDENT ROUTE

Task Force (STF)

—    Student Task Force established April 2004 following PM's announcement of top to bottom review of managed migration routes.

—    Student Task Force comprises colleagues from within IND (IS, Policy, Intelligence and Managed Migration), and OGDs—eg DfES as well as consulting the sector when necessary. This has resulted in more joined up approach.

—    Managed Migration Intelligence Unit established in May 2004 and works in partnership with the Student Task Force. Information will feed into the ongoing intelligence work and help to target enforcement as well as college visits.

—    July 2004 Student AIM process introduced to identify trends and issues and act as an early warning system by using heat maps for risk and impact.

—    In October 2004 Immigration Rules were changed for students whereby non-visa nationals could only switch into the student category and seek leave to remain if studying at degree level or above. This has prevented visitors claiming they intend to leave after their holiday and then enrolling in lower level private sector and further education courses.

—    In addition, also in October 2004 the maximum time individuals are allowed to remain in the UK to do successive short course below degree level was reduced from four to two years. This will address abuse by students taking a long succession of short, low level courses simply to stay in the UK.

—    Work is ongoing in developing policy and guidance for case workers on other areas that have been identified by case workers as possible avenues of abuse within the student route.

DfES Register of Education and Training Providers

—    Working closely with DfES a formal registration process for all genuine education and training providers came into force on 1 January 2005.

—    The Register is a voluntary list of genuine education and training providers in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Being included on the Register does not mean that quality of the education provided has been checked by the DfES.

—    The Register is used by DfES to provide a reliable list and as a means to record details of genuine educational providers. Additionally, the Register is used by IND to help tackle student immigration abuse.

—    The Register contains about 14,000 entries of which 13,000 are automatically included and only about 1,000 have needed to apply.

—    From 1 January 2005 student visas or leave to remain have been issued to overseas students enrolled to study at colleges that are on the DfES Register.

—    DfES estimates that approximately 200-300 non-genuine educational institutions failed to register because they were not able to meet the registration requirements and thus were no longer able to attract international students.

—    The effectiveness of the DfES register is currently being assessed as part of the work on the new Points Based System.

Visits

—    Between April—December 2004, 1,218 educational institutions were visited and 314 (25%) were found not to be genuine. All applications from students to study at institutions found not to be genuine were refused.

—    Between January-December 2005, working closely with colleagues in MMIU to identify the high priority visits, especially where adverse information was received, 43 educational institutions were visited of which 16 (37%) were removed from the DfES Register.

—    In July 2005 three Immigration Officers were seconded to the Student Task Force to assist visiting officers in carrying out visits, transfer skills to those in the team with less experience. More staff are needed to support and develop the compliance function of visits and increase out capability to carry out visits to further colleges that have already been identified as requiring investigation.

—    The team and MMIU are jointly developing processes to ensure that the limited resources available for compliance work are targeted towards high priority cases.

Notification of non-enrolment/attendance—Joint Notifications Project

—    There is no mandatory requirement on education providers to report or notify IND of students who no longer attend their course (ie those who discontinue their studies) and fail to attend their college.

—    However, since June 2004 education providers have been encouraged to voluntarily report non-attendance to IND. This has resulted in average of about 100 institutions per month reporting non-attendance on an average of 400 students per month. Inquiries into the whereabouts of these students have shown that the majority have enrolled at alternative institutions. The small percentage whose whereabouts are unknown have been flagged up in the event that they are encountered for enforcement action.

—    Following consultation with the DfES and the education sector about the merits of notifying IND of students who fail to enrol after having been with leave to enter and those who fail to attend the Joint Notification Project was launched in September 2005.

—    The purpose of the project is to test options and processes in addition to assessing their implications on the sector and IND prior to introducing the requirement as mandatory. The results of this Project are expected in March 2006, but initial feedback from some in the sector suggests that this is a positive move in helping to track international students and tackling abuse of the student route.

—    As part of this project work has been undertaken to enhance CID (caseworking database) so that it can be used effectively to include data/information about students who fail to enrol/attend thus leading to better informed decision-making by case workers.

Future (Points Based System)

—    The Points Based System (PBS) for students is being developed under the Government's 5 Year Strategy—"Controlling our Borders, Making Migration Work for Britain".

—    The new proposals will simplify and streamline the existing system, where international students will benefit from clear criteria which are easy to understand and based on a straight forward transparent system.

—    The new system will also support our on going efforts to tackle abuse, so that genuine students can have confidence in the immigration system and the educational institution at which they plan to study.

—    As part of the PBS we are developing a greater compliance function with proposals for a new register of educational institutions that is owned and maintained by IND. A more robust system will ensure that only genuine institutions are included onto the register and those that do meet the criteria will be dealt with fairly and abuse minimised.

—    Our compliance activities will be more proactive than at present, with emphasis on educational institutions taking some responsibility for the students they recruit and IND resources targeted at institutions who are failing to satisfy our requirements.

—    The consultation period on the consultation document "Making Migration Work for Britain" closed on 7 November. We are now analysing all the responses we have received. We anticipate that we will publish the Government response to the consultation exercise in the Spring, together with a clearer timetable for the next steps. We will continue to consult with key stakeholders on specific issues as we formulate our response and during future stages of the process.

INFORMATION ON HUMAN TRAFFICKING

Background

—    Human trafficking is a high priority for the UK government. We made this subject a priority for our presidency of the EU and were able to achieve agreement at EU level to an EU Action Plan which sets the forward work programme for the Union on trafficking. We are also giving this a high priority at a domestic level. A consultation paper "Tackling Human Trafficking—Consultation on Proposals for a UK Action Plan" was launched on 5 January. The consultation is designed to allow stakeholders and the wider public an opportunity to feed into the development of a national plan of action on trafficking.

What are the range of different ways in which the system is being abused?

—    Human trafficking will not always involve abuse of the immigration control. A number of victims of trafficking who have been detected in recent months have come from within the EU, meaning that their entry into the UK was not itself illegal and did not necessitate any abuse of the immigration system. The UN Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, supplementing the UN Protocol on Transnational Organised Crime, contains the most widely accepted definition on trafficking. In this definition, illegal entry/ border crossing is not included as necessary component of human trafficking.

—    Victims of trafficking are normally deceived into travelling to the UK by the promise of work. Traffickers will then seek to arrange their travel and entry into the UK. Where this entry is illegal, traffickers have the same range of options for illegal entry as facilitators who are engaged in smuggling persons into the country. Victims may enter the UK clandestinely or may travel by air using forged or falsified documents. Victims have been detected who have travelled into the UK on "look alike" documents, ie genuine documents belonging to someone bearing a physical resemblance to the victim. Equally, there have also been cases of women travelling on genuine passports that have had a different photo substituted in, or on completely false documents.

What is the extent of the problem and how this is changing over time?

—    Research conducted into the scale and nature of trafficking in human beings and police intelligence indicates that the UK is primarily a destination country for victims. The evidence suggests that some people are brought directly to the UK and their exploitation commences only after arrival here, while others are brought to the UK in stages and exploited in transit countries before ultimately arriving in the UK. It is reported that the majority of trafficked victims originate from Eastern Europe and the Balkans, or from the Far East, especially China and Thailand. There appears to be a growing trend in victims of trafficking for sexual exploitation being brought to the UK from within the EU, in particular from Lithuania.

—    Intelligence suggests that there has been an increase in the trafficking problem over the last two or three years, however it remains difficult to make an accurate assessment of the scale of the problem. The majority of our knowledge regarding the situation in the UK centres on trafficking for prostitution, although we acknowledge that there are still significant gaps in this picture also. In terms of data, referrals to the Poppy Project provide the most reliable figures on numbers of victims of trafficking for prostitution in the UK, since they relate to actual victims who have been encountered. Since the scheme's inception a total of 158 women who met the criteria for the project have been referred to it (out of a total of 367 referrals between March 2003 and the end of September 2005). However, the scheme operates mainly in London and has tightly focussed criteria, so the number of victims nationwide will of course be higher.

—    We do not yet have sufficient evidence regarding trafficking for purposes other than sexual exploitation ie labour exploitation or child trafficking for non-sexual exploitation to enable us to make a full assessment of whether these pose a significant problem for the UK. However, these are areas we have highlighted in the consultation paper as knowledge gaps; we hope the consultation will provide additional information on these forms of human trafficking.

What initiatives are in place to combat abuses?

—    In terms of immigration abuse, the wide range of measure we have in place to prevent the abuse of the immigration control will act to prevent human trafficking also, where it involves illegal entry. For example, the roll out of New Detection Technology, intelligence and the advent of Juxtaposed controls seek to enhance security at the borders. A range of NDT including CO2 probes, and heartbeat detectors are used to identify breaches of the control at Calais. The UK/France action plan is re-enforcing a united stance at preventing clandestine illegal entry.

—    More specific measures have also been taken to seek to detect human trafficking at point of entry. For example, training and guidance for immigration staff has been updated to cover child trafficking issues and a permanent multi-agency team has been created at Heathrow Airport to address the specific safeguarding needs of unaccompanied minors. Our consultation document also sets out our commitment to review the training and guidance available to frontline immigration staff to ensure border control agencies have the information they need to detect trafficking at point of entry.

—    Reflex, the multi-agency police taskforce which was set up in 2000 to combat organised immigration crime, coordinates the law enforcement response to human trafficking. Reflex has been working hard to increase the awareness and capacity of the police to deal with human trafficking cases. This approach has resulted in a significant increase in the number of prosecutions for trafficking. So far there have been 14 convictions for trafficking for sexual exploitation under the new Sexual Offences Act 2003 legislation. In addition, there were 5 convictions under the stop-gap Nationality, Asylum and Immigration Act 2002 offence of trafficking for prostitution. Organised Immigration Crime, which includes human trafficking, will be the second priority for SOCA (the new Serious Organised Crime Agency) when it goes live in April 2006.

—    The pan-London Vice team in Enforcement and Removals works closely with CO14 (clubs and Vice) team of the Metropolitan police and carries out intelligence led operations targeting brothels, saunas and working flats in London on a weekly basis. Safe systems of working have been put in place to identify victims of trafficking and training has been provided for all Local Enforcement Offices in the UK.

For what reasons have these options been chosen?

—    It is important that trafficking is viewed both as an organised crime issue as well as an immigration issue. As highlighted above, trafficking may not always involve an immigration abuse, but it will always involve a human rights abuse.

—    The aim of Reflex, which will also be SOCA's aim, is to target the harm caused by organised immigration crime. Human trafficking causes considerable harm to individuals and to society more generally. For this reason, it is a high priority. However, we recognise that the Immigration Service has an important role to play in detecting and preventing trafficking. The point of entry to the UK is one of the few places in the trafficking process where traffickers and potential victims come into contact with authorities and can possible be identified.

—    In addition, work to combat abuse of the immigration control more generally will impact on the ability of traffickers to bring people to the UK and therefore to exploit them.

What is the effectiveness of initiatives being taken?

—    Reflex is having a considerable impact—trafficking is not a traditional area of policing business however there are now 18 forces who have a dedicated full-time Reflex capability on organised immigration crime, in addition, many other forces have received funding for Reflex work. We are seeing an increase in the numbers of prosecutions for human trafficking and the sentences being handed down are significant. The sentences given for individual trafficking charges have ranged from two to nine years, however when added to associated charges such as rape and false imprisonment, these mean overall sentencing levels are high.

—    In November 2005 the Court of Appeal heard an appeal against sentence from Shaban Makka who was sentenced in March 2005 for 18 years for trafficking and associated offences. The Court of Appeal upheld the sentence ruling that the sentence was fair for the type of criminality involved in trafficking and thereby setting a useful precedent for sentencing levels. This supports the earlier Court of Appeal ruling in 2004 which increased the sentence in the case of Luan Plakici from 10 years to 23 years.

—    Five traffickers were sentenced to a total of 63 years in December 2005 (Operation Rotunda instigated by Pan-London/Eaton House Vice Team and CO14). The two main ring-leaders received 18 years each.

—    Operational procedures are in place enabling officers to identify trafficked children, which are then referred to our Joint Intelligence Unit with the primary objective of protecting trafficked children. The UK Immigration Service acknowledges that the trafficking of children is an area of concern and is taking forward a number of initiatives jointly with the Metropolitan police to combat trafficking and identify vulnerable children.

—    A team consisting of both Metropolitan police child protection officers and immigration officers was set up at Heathrow airport in October 2005. This team is jointly funded by the Metropolitan police and UK Immigration Service and is tasked with safeguarding children arriving in and transiting through the UK.

—    The team has just completed a three month trial with the support of carriers on direct flights from Jamaica. The aim of the pilot was to identify vulnerable children travelling to the United Kingdom to enable the police and the immigration service to intervene at an early stage. The results will now be analysed and consideration will be given to putting in place measures in areas of greater concern.   

BACKGROUND—    The United Kingdom Immigration Service are taking forward a number of initiatives which look at how children are dealt with upon arrival in the United Kingdom aimed at identifying children who may be vulnerable, which includes unaccompanied asylum seeking children. These include:

JOINT TEAM AT HEATHROW (PALADIN TEAM)—    The establishment of the Paladin Team was one of the recommendations in the Operation Paladin Child report. This team has been operational since 17 October 2005 and is headed by a Detective Inspector. Their first major task has been taking forward the Kingston Pilot, which was a three month trial working with airlines to identify vulnerable children prior to them travelling to the UK.

KINGSTON PILOT—    UKIS have been working with the Department of Transport and carriers to agree a voluntary code of practice to be followed by airlines carrying children to the UK, who are either unaccompanied or who are travelling with an adult who is not a parent or family member. The background to this is the serious concerns at Ministerial and Prime Ministerial level concerning the number of children arriving in the United Kingdom who may be at risk of neglect, abuse or exploitation. The pilot began on 31 October 2005, ran for three months and has just concluded. The results will now be analysed to see whether the process can be rolled out to areas of greater concern.

YOUNG PERSONS ADVISOR (YPA)—    Immigration officers at Heathrow airport have been working with a Young Persons Advisor (YPA) since 2001. The YPA was established by the Refugee Arrivals Project but there is only one to cover the four Heathrow terminals and therefore staff cannot always be guaranteed their services when requested. In fact this is the only YPA so far and funding is secured by the Refugee Arrivals Project and Save the Children UK. However, the service that they provide has been recognised as being very beneficial to the child and another way in which we can assure that children are supported and cared for on arrival in the UK.

What possible alternative courses of action are under consideration?

—    Measures to prevent trafficking at point of entry or to target the organised crime groups involved through Reflex and SOCA are only one part of the government strategy on trafficking. These must be seen as part of strategy which also includes support for victims, in the form of the POPPY Scheme, work to prevent trafficking at source, co-ordinated by DfID and FCO.

—    There are a number of proposals contained in the consultation paper launched on 5 January, for developing a more comprehensive response to trafficking. These include:

—  research;

—  awareness raising initiatives, include working with airline carriers;

—  tightening entry clearance procedures for minors;

—  including information about trafficking in the training of British military personnel;

—  measures to tackle demand for trafficking for prostitution;

—  reviewing police training on trafficking;

—  considering how support services for victims might be expanded.

—  Reflex funded Operation Pentameter is a period of activity involving several UK law enforcement agencies aiming to identify victims of trafficking and highlight their plight. It further seeks to target the traffickers and people smugglers involved with a view to prosecution.

—    Further information can be found in the consultation paper at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/haveyoursay/current-consultations/

INFORMATION ON GANGMASTERS

The range of different ways that the system is being abused

—    It is important to emphasise that there is nothing inherently illegal in the activity undertaken by gangmasters. In some sectors a significant proportion of the demand by employers for temporary labour is met in this way and there are a number of perfectly respectable gangmasters carrying on legitimate businesses within the law. However from the evidence collected by the enforcement agencies of Government Departments, it is clear that some gangmasters are acting illegally in meeting the demand for temporary labour. This activity can take a variety of forms including;

—  The supply of workers not entitled to work in the UK.

—  Unlawful deductions from wages.

—  Non-compliance with Minimum Wage legislation.

—  Failure to collect or declare income tax and National Insurance contributions.

—  Failure to register or pay VAT.

—  Violation of health and safety regulations.

—  Collusion with workers in the claiming of benefit when not entitled to claim.

The extent of the problem and how this is changing over time

—    By its very nature, the activity of gangmasters who act illegally does not readily lend itself to measurement by survey. Anecdotal evidence obtained from various sources (including inquiries and exposés by the media and various prosecutions undertaken by Government enforcement agencies) would suggest that in agriculture and horticulture illegal activity is not uncommon.

—    Evidence obtained for the rest of the Food Chain is mixed. In 2005 Defra commissioned research into the extent to which gangmasters who operated in the food manufacturing sector exploited their workers. This research was undertaken in order to inform the development of secondary legislation connected with the implementation of the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004. This research (which was conducted in the form of an employee satisfaction survey) found that, in general, workers supplied by gangmasters were relatively satisfied with their conditions of employment and exploitation by gangmasters in this sector was not thought to be endemic. However, when information obtained from the research about wage levels is taken with level of deductions from wages it can be imputed that some workers are being paid at rates below the national minimum. Furthermore, given that a very high proportion of workers supplied by gangmasters to undertake work in the food manufacturing sector are from the new Member States it is thought that the high level of satisfaction with their conditions of employment is based in part on relatively low levels of expectation compared with their UK counterparts. In addition, this research did not attempt to measure other forms of illegal activity, such as tax fraud and the non declaration of National Insurance contributions.

—    By contrast, information obtained by the Temporary Labour Working Group (TLWG)'s implementation of a Code of Practice for Labour Providers operating in the Food Chain suggests that illegal activity is widespread. According to the Ethical Trading Initiative (which chairs the TLWG), an analysis of 164 reports of gangmasters audited against the Code of Practice indicates that 90% have non-compliances against the licensing conditions proposed by the Gangmasters Licensing Authority. In total, 889 non-compliances against the draft licensing conditions have been recorded and while:

—  10% of businesses have no non-compliances against this standard,

—  50% have between one and five,

—  30% between six and 10 and

—  10% have more than 10.

—    In addition, in some cases auditors have picked up issues of serious concern that could not be robustly investigated in a voluntary initiative such as this. These findings include serious and in some cases persistent abuses of basic rights at work: TLWG auditors found 13 instances of bonded labour, 53 instances of breaches of working time regulations, 28 instances of breaches regarding the employment of children and young workers and 28 instances of illegal deductions from pay. This analysis has been supported by the testimonies of individual workers which were provided by the TGWU as part of its response to Defra's consultation on the Gangmasters (Exclusions) Regulations undertaken towards the end of 2005.

What initiatives are in place to combat abuses?

—    Government departments continue to work together to support enforcement activity against illegal gangmasters.

—    Overall results from enforcement activity against gangmasters include:

—  Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) identifying 1,280 overpayments worth £1,618,379, securing 399 sanctions and prosecutions, in the year 2003-04. In 2004-05 DWP identified 880 overpayments worth £324,629 and secured 70 sanctions and prosecutions. The fall reflects changes in the labour market, which has seen a significant fall in the number of benefit claimants employed by gangmasters.

—  HMRC, during the period 1 April 2005 to 31 December 2005, identifying additional liability of £30.4 million, of which £18.8 million has so far been collected.

—  HMRC specialist teams settling 46 enquiries/reviews identifying unpaid tax and National Insurance worth £4.3 million.

—  Criminal prosecutions of 14 gangmasters for VAT offences, involving VAT of £5.9 million and resulting in prison sentences totalling 31 years.

—    In addition, the Government is implementing the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004. The Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 establishes the Gangmasters Licensing Authority (GLA) to set up and operate a licensing scheme for gangmasters operating in the agricultural, shellfish gathering and associated processing and packaging sectors. Once the licensing arrangements are in place, it will be illegal to operate as a labour provider in the specified areas without a licence. It will also make it an offence for a person to enter into an arrangement with an unlicensed labour provider. The Act applies to work done anywhere in the United Kingdom.

—    The GLA will be responsible for ensuring licence holders comply with the conditions of licences issued to them. To this end the GLA has recently completed consultation on draft licence conditions which will apply to the issue of a gangmasters licence. Information gateways are being established to underpin the licence approval, compliance and enforcement aspects of the GLA's work. It is intended that the licensing arrangements should be self funding through licence fee income.

—    Defra is responsible for putting the remaining elements of the Gangmasters Licensing legislative framework in place. Defra has completed consultations on regulations to establish an appeals process and regulations to exclude certain activities from the scope of the licensing arrangements. The outcomes of both consultations are being considered by Government with a view to presenting both sets of regulations to Parliament in the early part of the year. Defra is also responsible for regulations setting out the checks a labour user must make to establish whether a labour provider is licensed. Consultation on these regulations is planned for the spring of 2006.

—    Both Defra and the Authority are working to ensure licensing can start in April 2006.

—    Labour providers outside the scope of the Gangmaster Licensing regime are generally subject to the legislation governing Employment Agencies (ie the Employment Agencies Act 1973 and the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003—known as the Conduct Regulations). Under the Act, the definition of employment agencies and employment businesses is very wide.

Employment Agency regulation

—    Employment agencies are regulated by legislation (Employment Agencies Act 1973 and the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003—known as the Conduct Regulations, which came into force in April 2004).

—    The Government's aim is to achieve the correct balance between the interests of employment agencies, the rights of work-seekers and the needs of hirers.

—    Legislation prevents agencies from seeking or receiving fees from work-seekers for providing job-seeking services.

—    We have introduced certain new protections for work-seekers and obligations on agencies/employment businesses to counter unacceptable practices not envisaged by the previous legislation.

—    These include provisions to ensure workers paid in full and on time, and obligations on agencies to establish identity and suitability of candidates.

—    The revised Regulations are being monitored.

—    Employment Agency Standards (EAS) Inspectors follow up every relevant complaint they receive about agencies.

—    The EAS Helpline processes complaints and provides advice on the operation of the legislation to workers, agencies, hirers and other interested parties.

—    EAS Inspectorate encourage anyone—including any migrant worker—who has information that indicates that an agency or employment business may be in breach of the legislation to contact the helpline. Every complaint is treated as confidential.

—    Legislation includes powers to prosecute agencies for breaches of regulations and to prohibit individuals from being involved with running of an agency.

—    DTI is committed to improving the effectiveness with which we identify and tackle employers who deliberately break the law. They are drawing together the various bodies that enforce legislation.

—    Since a number of employment agencies will be providing labour across a wide range of industries, some subject to the Gangmaster Licensing regime some subject to employment agency legislation, some of the licence conditions reflect requirements in the Conduct Regulations, where these are or may be applicable to gangmasters. In this way, businesses supplying labour will, as far as possible, be subject to a consistent regulatory regime across the various industries concerned.

The reason these options have been chosen

—  The Government supported Jim Sheridan's Private Members Bill on the licensing of gangmasters in agriculture, shellfish gathering and the associated food processing and packaging sectors, as it offered a ready opportunity to address those areas of the economy where the problem of illegal activity by gangmasters is thought to be most acute. In particular a strong cross industry support for licensing already existed in the form of the TLWG which has implemented a voluntary Code of Practice for Labour Providers in the Food Chain. Some of the licence conditions are based on provisions within the Code.

—  Licensing will establish a properly regulated labour supply market, which should help to drive out unfair competition from those who currently operate illegally and promote compliance with existing legislation.

—  It is anticipated that the ability of government departments to share and exchange information and intelligence on the activities of gangmasters in the food supply chain will be enhanced by the operation of the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004. The Act enables the GLA to collaborate closely with other Government Departments (OGDs) and to share and exchange information and intelligence by establishing an appropriate legal gateway. This should enable OGDs, including Health and Safety Executive, to develop and implement intelligence led strategies for tackling abuse and illegal activity within their respective statutory remits.

—  Similarly, the Home Office-led, cross-departmental Joint Workplace Enforcement Pilot has been set up with the aim of disrupting illegal working and tackling the use and exploitation of illegal migrant workers across all industries within the boundaries of the Regional Government for the West Midlands.

The effectiveness of initiatives being taken

—  It is obviously too early to say how effective the implementation of the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act is in tackling illegal activity by gangmasters. Defra will be asking the Authority to provide an annual account of its activities and this will include an assessment of the effectiveness of the Authority in tackling the illegal gangmasters activities.

—  HSE anticipates that better and more comprehensive intelligence on the activities of gangmasters within the scope of the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act will be available from April 2006 onwards on which to base its evidence led inspection strategy.

Possible alternative course of action under consideration

—  No other courses currently under consideration.

15 February 2006

---

---

---

Prepared 23 July 2006