53. Eleventh supplementary
memorandum submitted by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate,
Home Office
FOLLOW-UP TO EVIDENCE SESSION WITH OFFICIALS,
16 MAY 2006 AND VISIT TO CALAIS, 11 MAY 2006
On Tuesday 16 May 2006 the Committee took evidence
from James Quinault and Dave Roberts. During the session the Chairman
said that there were some further questions the Committee would
like to put in writing to the witnesses. There were also some
issues raised during the course of the session that the witnesses
agreed to follow up. This note covers both points.
It also follows up an issue touched upon during
the Committee's visit to the juxtaposed immigration controls in
Calais on Thursday 11 May 2006.
EMPLOYMENT
1. A note rebutting Migration Watch's latest
figures on the economic impact of migration
The Committee asked for a note on the Migration
Watch paper entitled "The fiscal contribution of migrants",
April 2006.[43]
The paper criticises the methodology of the original Home Office
paper on the fiscal contribution of migrants[44],
and the subsequent IPPR paper[45],
both of which concluded that migrants' net fiscal contribution
was greater than natives.
The Migration Watch paper's central claim is
that "the Home Office study made a serious error in selecting
the basis of their calculation" because of its treatment
of the UK born dependent children of migrants. The MW paper argues
that:
"Dependent children are particularly important
to these calculations because they are a considerable cost (principally
in respect of education) but do not, of course, contribute to
direct taxation receipts (income tax and national insurance)"
On the face of it, this has a certain plausibility.
It is broadly correct to say UK born children of migrants would
not be here if their parents had not migrated to the UK; and it
is certainly true that while they are children they impose, on
average, a net cost. For this reason, the original Home Office
study attributed these children to the migrant population. The
problem with this methodology—as the study very clearly
stated— is that UK born adults whose parents are migrants
would, by precisely the same logic, also not be here if their
parents had not migrated to the UK; and on average as adults they
yield a net benefit. But the Labour Force Survey, the primary
data source for the calculations in all the papers, does not identify
the country of birth of the parents of adults. So they are simply
treated as natives by both the Home Office and Migration Watch
calculations.
The result is that the UK born child of migrant
parents is treated as a cost imposed by migration as long as they
are a dependent child. During this period, they are likely to
be an infant or at school, and very unlikely to be in employment
or paying significant amounts of tax. Her fiscal impact will be
negative. However, as soon as they cease to be a dependent, this
same person will be treated as UK born. Since this is likely to
be roughly at the same time as they enter the labour market, it
is also roughly the time at which (on average) they are likely
to become a net contributor to the Exchequer, with a positive
fiscal impact. So, for most such people, and certainly on average,
they will be treated as negative on the migrant side of the balance
sheet, and positive on the native side. As the original Home Office
publication noted, this methodology therefore builds a structural
bias into the calculations "the inclusion of second-generation
children and the exclusion of those who have left home, started
work and pay tax (who are not identified in the data) tends to
reduce the estimates of migrants' contribution to the economy".
Migration Watch's latest publication does not
correct this bias. Instead, it makes it much worse, to the point
where the results are simply meaningless. The large number of
UK-born children of mixed households (one migrant and one non-migrant
parent) were included as UK-born children in the Home Office and
IPPR studies. Migration Watch now say that such children should
be apportioned 50:50 to migrants and non-migrants—although,
once again, once they reach working age they are regarded as non-migrants.
No usual definition of "migrant" would consider such
children as migrants, and doing so simply biases the calculation
further—and in this case very substantially—against
migrants.
It is certainly correct that there are a number
of methodological issues around the calculations of net fiscal
impact, and the Home Office paper was never intended to be the
last word on the subject. More broadly, static calculations of
this nature are by no means the most important factor to be considered
in assessing the overall economic impact of migration (where the
academic consensus remains very clear that migration yields significant
economic benefits). But the latest Migration Watch paper is simply
wrong, and the broad conclusions of the original Home Office study,
and the subsequent IPPR paper, stand.
ENFORCEMENT
2. A note on the following statistics:
2.1 The numbers of people released after
questioning at ports without any reporting requirements.
All passengers granted temporary admission at
ports of entry are either required to live at a specified address
or report to an immigration officer or police officer at a specified
time.
2.2. The numbers of people who do not comply
with reporting requirements.
Since April 2005 we have been monitoring the
level of compliance with reporting requirements. Individuals who
are placed on a reporting restriction are required to report at
a reporting centre or a police station at regular intervals. This
interval will vary from a daily reporting event up to reporting
each month depending upon individual circumstances. Information
we have indicates that four out of five of all planned reporting
events in 2005-06 took place, but this does not mean that one
out of five of all persons with a requirement to report stopped
reporting altogether, as some will have failed to report on one
occasion before then reporting again.
2.3. The numbers of people sent letters
saying they must leave, compared with the numbers of those actually
removed; and
2.4. The numbers of people who are not removed
when their appeals have failed.
Details relating to the numbers of people who
receive negative decisions and the numbers of immigration offenders
removed are included in the Home Office Research Development and
Statistics Directorate website at: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html
The available information does not include those
who leave the country on their own volition, when their permission
to stay ends. No government has ever been able to produce an accurate
figure for the numbers of people who remain in the UK following
either a decision to refuse asylum or leave to remain in any
other category of the Immigration Rules. By its very nature it
is impossible to quantify accurately, as many people will leave
the UK of their own accord without informing the immigration authorities.
The numbers of failed asylum seekers that the
Department removes is increasing. On 23 of May the department
published figures on the IND website (http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/)
which showed that we met the Prime Minister's `tipping the balance'
target in February and March—ie the point where number of
removals matched the number of people coming in whose claims are
predicted to be unfounded.
2.5 A breakdown of prosecution outcomes
supplied in Dave Roberts' evidence to show the offences concerned.
Figures on prosecution outcomes provided to
the Committee on 16 May referred to the period April-December
2005. Updated figures for 2005-06 are now available and indicate
that there were 378 prosecutions completed in this period.
Of the 378 completed prosecutions the break
down of the main offences is as follows:
| 259 | document abuse
|
| 29 | facilitation |
| 25 | breach immigration control
|
| 21 | marriage abuse |
| 14 | asylum abuse |
| 10 | illegal working (various)
|
| 8 | Section 8 (employer)
|
| 3 | Section 2 (entry—no documents)
|
| 9 | Not known |
The measure in Section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act
1996 can be difficult to enforce. Accordingly, the list of documents
employers can check has been revised, and the most easily forged
documents have been removed. It is worth noting that in serious
cases involving trafficking, forgery or facilitation, the authorities
prosecute for these offences under other relevant legislation
rather than Section 8.
The Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 will replace
the current section 8 legislation with a new system of civil penalties
that will provide a swift and effective means of tackling employers
who are less than diligent in carrying out document checks by
issuing a penalty of up to £2,000. This will enable the Directorate
to concentrate its prosecution resources on more serious cases
where employers are deliberately and `knowingly' using migrants
with no permission to work. This new criminal offence of "knowingly"
employing an illegal worker will carry a maximum two year custodial
sentence.
3. Given the costs of forcible removal (financial, psychological,
and presentational, among others) what is the government doing
to encourage voluntary return of those with no legal basis to
remain in the United Kingdom, in both asylum and non-asylum cases?
The major programmes are the Voluntary Assisted Return and
Reintegration Programme (VARRP) and the Assisted Voluntary Return
for Irregular Migrants (AVRIM) and are currently run on behalf
of the Home Office by the International Organisation for Migration
(IOM)—an independent international organisation.
We fully recognise the benefits of these packages and as
part of a number of measures being taken to increase the number
of voluntary returns, the reintegration package for those who
return under VARRP was increased temporarily from £1000 to
£3000. This pilot exercise was started in January 2006 and
delivered a significant increase in the figures for the same period
last year. Due to the success of the pilot the enhanced package
has been extended for a further six months.
The AVRIM programme was introduced in November 2004 to assist
Irregular Migrants to return to their country of origin in response
to increased applications from non asylum seekers and in support
of the Harm Reduction Agenda. Since 1 April 2006 reintegration
assistance worth up to £1,000 of "in kind" help
has been provided to vulnerable individuals; such as victims of
trafficking, unaccompanied minors and the disabled. The promotion
of AVRIM is challenging since the target groups are not in contact
with IND nor do they generally have NGOs (eg Refugee Council)
or the voluntary sector to represent their interests.
Significant progress has been made following recommendations
made by the Public Affairs Committee on improving voluntary returns,
with VARRP take up increasing by 57% from Q4 2005 (875) to Q1
2006 (1,375). Since the inception of AVRIM in November 2004 there
have been a total of 667 returns at a unit cost of between £850
and £900. This achievement has been the result of various
initiatives by the Directorate, including:
— Targeted advertising
— Regional IOM offices to improve availability to those
based outside of London and the South East
— An enhanced reintegration package
— Providing training to other organisations who deal
with asylum seekers to promote The benefits of the programme as
well as
— Providing advice in all decision letters to refuse
asylum and those discontinuing asylum support.
4. Are the statistics on non-asylum arrivals and removals
counted on the same basis as each other, or are you comparing
apples with pears?
National Statistics published by the Home Office on persons
(non-EEA nationals) granted leave to enter the UK (arrivals) are
derived from landing cards completed by each person before they
arrive at the border control point. Each individual will complete
a landing card for each journey they make to the UK and therefore
count more than once in the statistics. These statistics will
include persons who claim asylum and those that don't.
IRSS publishes data on persons removed from the UK and those
subject to enforcement action (Table 6.1 of Annual Command Paper).
The total figure on persons removed is the sum of the number of
persons refused entry at port and subsequently removed, the number
of persons removed as a result of enforcement action, and the
number of persons leaving under the Assisted Voluntary Return
Programmes. The categories include both asylum and non asylum
elements.
National Statistics published by the Home Office on non-asylum
removals from the United Kingdom are on a person basis although
an individual may be counted more than once if removed more than
once. This data will also include any EEA nationals removed.
The year in which an individual arrives in the UK may not
be the same as the year of removal.
Therefore these two sets of data are not comparable and in
relation to any Public Service Agreement targets no such comparisons
are made.
5. A note on the effectiveness of the Joint Workplace Enforcement
Pilot, its outcomes and any lessons that have been learnt so far.
The Government is seeking to develop closer working between
departments responsible for enforcing workplace regulation. As
part of this we are piloting a new approach in the West Midlands—the
Joint Workplace Enforcement Pilot (JWEP).
The JWEP draws together a co-located team of enforcement
and intelligence officials from government departments responsible
for enforcing work place and employment regulations, including
IND, HM Revenue and Customs, Department for Work and Pensions,
Department for Trade and Industry, the Health and Safety Executive
and the Gangmasters Licensing Authority
Progress made includes the agreement of Protocols with all
the departments working within the JWEP in respect of intelligence
and information sharing and the first prosecution under the pilot,
which was against a company who were charged with four section
8 charges, resulted in a fine of £8,000 plus costs.
CALAIS
6. What action has been taken to respond to the report
of HM Inspector of Prisons, Report on the unannounced inspections
of three French non-residential, short-term holding facilities
at Calais Seaport, Coquelles Freight and Coquelles Tourist (2-3
August 2005)?
Calais Freight Holding Facility
The existing facility is temporary. A purpose built holding
room will be provided by the end of 2006. Notwithstanding this,
the temporary facility has been recently upgraded to provide greater
security for the detention staff and improved facilities for the
detainees. This is an ongoing process and a TV/DVD player will
be installed shortly. We are preparing a DVD in various languages
which will provide information to detainees and make them aware
of the facilities available to them
Calais Tourist Holding Facility
— Detention Information Sheets: Versions have been produced
in English, French, German, Spanish and Portuguese. Other languages
are in the course of production. They are currently mounted on
the walls in the search area and in the actual holding room in
Calais Tourist. We are preparing a DVD in various languages which
will provide information to detainees and make them aware of the
facilities available to them, which are:
— Religious Material: G4S have provided bibles, Koran,
prayer mats and compass, all of which are available in all locations.
— Reading Material. Magazines have been provided and
we will be buying further foreign language periodicals.
— Emergency hotline direct from holding area in Calais
Tourist to CIO Watch House. Clearly labelled for immediate response.
— Daily Log: Detention area is inspected twice daily
by CIO and any problems logged.
— Calais Tourist Payphone: Repairs have been protracted.
In the interim a mobile has been made available on request for
outgoing calls.
— Air Conditioning: Is in the procurement process.
— TV/DVD players to be installed shortly.
— Child Protection policy in place.
— Fire Evacuation policy in place.
— Policy of control and restraint, including handcuffs,
is clarified and in place at the controls in France.
Coquelles Freight Holding Facility
A pilot is under way which changes the use of this facility
fundamentally. Under the pilot, detention in the freight holding
facility is limited to 30 minutes within which time basic admission
procedures are completed. The detainee is then taken to the holding
room at the tourist control and remains there until his case is
completed and he is collected by the French authorities. The holding
room at tourist is fully equipped and provides the required facilities.
Where, exceptionally, there are concerns regarding the detainees
behaviour and reason to believe violence may occur, the detainee
will remain at the freight facility until collected by the French
authorities. The pilot essentially converts the freight facility
into simply an initial reception area used prior to detention
elsewhere on site.
Notwithstanding the pilot, a range of measures to upgrade
the facility has been agreed and is subject to ongoing procurement
processes. These include;
— Vinyl flooring to be installed in the rooms identified.
— A TV installed in each of the rooms.
— A room call system identified to enable detainees
to call staff when required.
— Replacement of the existing toilets with more appropriate
sanitary ware.
Coquelles Tourist Holding facility
The inadequate flap at the guard's window has been removed.
With regard to the remaining recommendations:
— The proposed changes to the fire exit doors would
hinder the evacuation of detainees from unfamiliar surroundings
in an emergency.
— Closing the gap above the walls will interfere with
the airflow and lead to a build up of heat.
— There is no suitable location in the vicinity of the
holding room for the provision of smoking breaks and guard staffing
levels could not facilitate this in safety.
7. For how long are people detained in the holding rooms
at Calais and at Coquelles before being handed to the French authorities
or released—both average and longest time in detention?
Figures shown are for April 06:
| Calais Tourist | |
|
| Average | 5 hours 30 minutes
|
| Maximum | 11 hours
|
| Calais Freight | Average
| 7 hours 15 minutes |
| Maximum | 11 hours 45 minutes
|
| Coquelles Tourist | Average
| 4 hours |
| Maximum | 13 hours 40 minutes
|
| Coquelles Freight | Maximum
| 30 minutes |
The detention periods are dependent upon the number of clandestines
detected and the availability of the French police to respond
and collect them from IS holding facilities.
The maximum times noted above for people kept in detention
at any of the juxtaposed controls holding facilities are very
unusual.
FOOTNOTE
Correction of evidence
Following the publication of the uncorrected transcript of
the oral evidence session, an unintentional error has been highlighted
in Dave Roberts' evidence which we would seek to correct here.
At question 816 of the uncorrected transcript, Dave Roberts
provided a comparison of the estimates of the illegal population
in the UK against those in the US as being 0.7 % of the population
in the UK compared to 7 to 8% in the US. This latter figure should
have been 7-8 million of the US population.
26 June 2006
43
http://www.migrationwatch.org/Briefingpapers/economic/fiscal-contribution-of-migrants.asp Back
44
Occasional Paper 77-The migrant population in the UK: fiscal
effects. RDS Occasional Paper No. 77-Ceri Gott and Karl Johnston Back
45
IPPR: Paying their Way, The Fiscal Contribution of Migrants
in the UK by Dhananjayan Sriskandarajah, Lawrence Cooley and Howard
Reed Back
| 
