Select Committee on Home Affairs Additional Written Evidence


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:


259document abuse
29facilitation
25breach immigration control
21marriage abuse
14asylum abuse
10illegal working (various)
8Section 8 (employer)
3Section 2 (entry—no documents)
9Not 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
Average5 hours 30 minutes
Maximum11 hours
Calais FreightAverage 7 hours 15 minutes
Maximum11 hours 45 minutes
Coquelles TouristAverage 4 hours
Maximum13 hours 40 minutes
Coquelles FreightMaximum 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


 
previous page contents next page

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

© Parliamentary copyright 2006
Prepared 23 July 2006