House of Commons - The Work of the UK Border Agency

The Work of the UK Border Agency - Home Affairs Committee Contents

Introduction

Background

1. Following the disclosure that a number of foreign prisoners had been released from custody without being considered for deportation, in June 2006 the Chief Executive of the then Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND), Lin Homer, began a process of regularly informing us by letter of progress in dealing with the cases of these 1013 prisoners. The first three letters sent to us (in June, October and December 2006) dealt solely with the foreign national prisoner issue. The fourth letter, of 19 February 2007, also discussed the IND's efforts to tackle a backlog of between 400,000 and 450,000 unresolved asylum cases, some dating back more than a decade, which became known as the Legacy Casework Programme. Subsequent letters[1] updated us on these issues and more generally on changes to the deportation system and to the working practices of the IND, which is now the UK Border Agency (UKBA). We note that Lin Homer has agreed to write to us with updates every three months.[2]

2. We have taken oral evidence from Lin Homer and the relevant Ministers on the basis of these letters on several occasions,[3] most recently on 8 July and 4 November 2009, and we also took oral evidence from Mr John Vine, the Independent Chief Inspector of the UKBA, on 14 July 2009. Transcripts of these last three oral evidence sessions, the two most recent of Lin Homer's letters and a follow-up letter from the Immigration and Borders Minister clarifying aspects of the oral evidence given on 4 November are published with this Report. We consider that it is now opportune to comment on some recurring issues relating to UKBA's handling of cases and a new issue that was brought to our attention in Lin Homer's letter of 19 October 2009.

Historic backlog of asylum cases

3. On 19 July 2006, the then Home Secretary, the Rt Hon John Reid MP, informed Parliament that he intended the backlog of 400,000-450,000 electronic and paper records relating to asylum cases to be tackled and cleared in five years or less. He described the records as "riddled with duplication and errors, and including cases of individuals who have since died or left the country, or are now EU citizens…".[4] New processes were put in place to help clear the backlog, including the employment of more staff to process applications, and the introduction of a New Asylum Model with caseworkers handling the same case from start to finish.

4. UKBA prioritises cases where the applicant may pose a risk to the public and, as a second priority, those where the applicant is eligible for financial support from the taxpayer.[5] Since the summer of 2009, responsibility for dealing with the cases of applicants convicted of serious crimes has been transferred from the Case Resolution Directorate, that deals with the backlog, to another part of UKBA, the Criminal Casework Directorate.[6] We were not told how many cases were likely to be transferred in this way.

5. In her October 2009 update on the resolution of cases and removal of failed asylum seekers, Lin Homer reported:

The UK Border Agency is continuing to clear the backlog of older asylum cases with more than 220,000 cases concluded to the end of September 2009.[7] Of the 220,000 conclusions, over 14% were removals and 52% were 'other' conclusions such as erroneous/duplicate records, while 34% were grants.[8]

More detail is provided in a table[9] annexed to the letter:

Total number concluded Of which, main applicants Of which, dependents

Removals 30,000 (14%) 28,000 2,500

Grants 74,000 (34%) 41,500 32,500

Others 116,000 (52%) 100,500 15,500

Total 220,000 170,000 50,500

This compares with the following breakdown of figures in her letter of 7 July:[10]

Total number concluded Of which, main applicants Of which, dependents

Removals 27,500 (14%) 25,500 2,000

Grants 62,000 (31%) 34,500 27,500

Others 107,500 (54%) 98,500 9,000

Total 197,500 158,500 39,000

6. We noted the rise in the proportion of concluded cases that resulted in the grant of leave to remain between July and October and the increasing proportion of long-standing cases among those given such leave (in the July figures, 15% of those granted leave to remain had cases dating back seven years or more; in the October figures, 18% had cases dating back seven years or more).[11] This is because the longer people remain in the UK awaiting a final decision, the more likely they are to be granted leave to remain on humanitarian grounds (such as their having established a family life in this country).[12]

7. We asked what the maximum time was an applicant would have been waiting for a resolution of his or her case, and were told that some applicants had already resided in the UK for nine years. This was particularly likely to be the situation if they were not 'supported' cases[13] as the resolution of unsupported cases had been postponed while the priority group was dealt with. Every long-standing case discovered so far had related to people given an initial decision that they would not be granted asylum but who refused to accept that decision and had launched multiple challenges and appeals.[14]

8. We have frequently asked whether this programme (known as the Case Resolution Programme) was on target for completion in the summer of 2011. We noted in July that about 197,000 cases had been concluded in the first three years of the programme, leaving up to 250,000 to be cleared in the remaining two years. Lin Homer replied that we had to take into account the inherent delay in putting teams together and determining processes before the main work could begin, adding:

in the last six to nine months we have been steadily [increasing] the number we deal with each month… and it has been sustained now for quite a long time at … 9,000-10,000 a month… That is what gives us confidence as we go forward that, even if our most extreme projection [ie a total of 450,000 cases] were right, we can do this within the timescale we set.[15]

9. The pace slowed in the months between July and October, with only 23,000 more cases being completed in that period. Lin Homer attributed this decrease to the recruitment of, and consequent need to train, a significant number of new staff[16] and the transfer of more experienced staff to "live" casework. She said that procedures for dealing with the backlog cases had been streamlined and she expected to see "a significant ramp up in performance in the next quarter" as these new measures started to take effect.[17]

10. We suggested that the backlog could be cleared faster if more staff were employed. Lin Homer said in July 2009 that she and the Permanent Secretary of the Home Department had been evaluating options about how UKBA "could most efficiently use additional resources" and that they expected "a significant number of additional administrative staff to join the Case Resolution Directorate on a temporary basis, in the course of the next few months, with the intention of freeing up trained caseworkers to make more decisions."[18] We have subsequently been told that the target for clearing the backlog is under review as it is hoped that the employment of 350 extra temporary staff will speed up the processing.[19] Whilst welcoming increased resources made available to clear the substantial backlog of asylum applications, we remain most dissatisfied at a target date of the summer of 2011. This in our view is simply too long and we urge that staffing levels are such that all cases going back three years or longer are finally decided on at the latest by September 2010.

DUPLICATES AND ERRORS

11. We were concerned at the number — and high percentage — of cases listed as being concluded for "another reason" and tried to delve deeper. Lin Homer has provided us with the following figures relating to main applicants:[20]

Closure type Total up to July 2009[21] Total up to October 2009

Duplicates 3,500 4,000

Errors 82,000 88,500

EU nationals 7,000 8,500

Cases where attempts to contact the applicant have been unsuccessful and subsequently the case has been in the archive for more than six months 6,000 — [see paragraph 12 below]

All 'another reason' 98,500 100,500

12. The categories of 'Duplicates' and 'EU nationals' are self-explanatory. The Minister for Identity, Meg Hillier MP, explained to us that "errors are cases where, for example, someone may have already been removed or granted some form of leave, and the record on our database was not updated correctly".[22] The fourth category was described as follows:

The legacy cohort contains cases that the Agency cannot trace, including those that are likely to have left the country voluntarily. The Agency makes every effort to trace such cases, checking a number of internal and external databases. If such tracing fails, the case is placed in a controlled archive. Once a case has been in the controlled archive for six months it is included in the conclusions statistics. … However, cases in the controlled archive are run against a number of watchlists every three months and can be reactivated and removed from the conclusions statistics at any time, should the applicant come to light. No cases where the applicant has a positive Police National Computer hit are placed in the controlled archive.

Lin Homer added that between March and May 2009 some 19 cases had been reactivated as further information became available and subsequently concluded. She suggested: "This small number supports our view that many of these cases may not be traceable".[23]

13. The October tables do not contain a separate category of controlled archive cases. Instead, a note to Table 1.1 says that the 100,500 total for 'other reasons' "includes 5,500 controlled archive cases older than six months". It is not clear whether these 5,500 cases have been concluded since July, and have therefore merged into one of the other three categories of error, duplicate or EU national; or whether the overall figure of 100,500 should have been increased to take into account these controlled archive cases.

14. We are very concerned by the high proportion of 'errors' amongst the cases concluded so far. We understand the difficulty in keeping track of people who may have made multiple applications, sometimes in different names, particularly in the years before the biometric information of applicants was recorded and at times when the numbers of people seeking asylum were at record highs. It is most regrettable, however, that the registration of cases became so chaotic. We trust that the new asylum model of case-handling will prevent such confusion recurring, and we look forward to seeing evidence of this in Lin Homer's next letter to us.

Immigration cases

15. We were surprised to be told in October of another set of historical files where it was not known whether the applicant had left the country or remained and, if the latter, whether he or she had been granted leave to remain or was here illegally. These cases relate to immigration rather than asylum, mostly precede the introduction of the charging regime for immigration applications in 2003 and number about 40,000.[24]

16. We asked the Minister and Lin Homer about these cases on 4 November. The Minister said the extent of the problem had come to light during the course of "our huge management project to clear up the past archives", and emphasised that the 40,000 cases could well contain a number of duplicates so, contrary to media reports, were likely to relate to fewer people.[25] All 40,000 had immediately been checked against the watch list and Police National Computer to identify anyone likely to cause harm. UKBA had also taken a sample of 800 of the files to assess. Of these, 65% pre-dated 2003, with some going back to 1983. They related to family claims (dependant spouses or other relatives seeking leave to remain), students and other types of migrant who had been given some kind of temporary leave to visit the UK but were seeking to extend that leave. For 85% of them, nothing further was known: there were no further applications to which they could be linked, nor had any representations been made about their application. Of the remaining 15%, most had had their initial applications refused but had subsequently submitted more information or another application.[26] We were told: "It is quite likely that a number of those people will have gone on to resolve their case in some way. They may well have made another application that was successful. They may well have left the country. My suspicion is that we will find, as we did with the general legacy cases, many of these cases are resolved".[27]

17. Lin Homer said that UKBA intended to deal with these cases in the same timeframe as the legacy asylum cases—by mid 2011 at the latest.[28]

18. We were concerned that there might be other sets of historic files relating to people whose immigration status and current whereabouts were unknown. Lin Homer said there were "None that we know of". She also argued it was unlikely that similar sets of cases would build up in future as the introduction of the e-borders programme would make it possible to track exactly who had entered and left the UK.[29]

19. It is vital for the UKBA to undertake general housekeeping exercises of the type that has brought this tranche of immigration cases to light. However, we are astonished that such a large number of files—40,000—should have been, in effect, abandoned incomplete. We sincerely hope that this is the last batch of unresolved cases to discover.

20. The previous Home Secretary described the UKBA as 'not fit for purpose', and the recent discovery of these immigration cases shows that the agency still has a long way to go before it is operating as efficiently and effectively as it needs to do. Despite this, in 2007-08 29 employees received bonuses totalling £295,000.[30]

21. We note that in the last few years the immigration service has had to implement eight large immigration acts, including most recently the introduction of the Points Based System, and a further massive Bill is proposed.[31] We consider that the problems faced by UKBA require administrative action rather than further legislation.

Role of the Independent Chief Inspector

22. We first took oral evidence from the Independent Chief Inspector of the UK Border Agency in November 2008, shortly after his appointment, while he was still setting up his office and recruiting his workforce. We said then that we would invite him back once he had had a chance to plan and start to carry out his initial work.[32] When he gave evidence to us in July 2009, he had produced an inspection plan, already carried out two visa inspection reports, one in Italy and the other in Nigeria, and had completed three pilot inspections, the emerging findings from which were due to be published in his annual report in the autumn of 2009.[33] Both visa inspection reports have been published subsequently.

23. The Chief Inspector told us that he wanted to cover most areas of UKBA's organisation within the next three years. He had planned other, broader inspections of the visa section of UKBA (starting off with Kuala Lumpur and Singapore, and then Chennai) as well as an administrative review (including the effectiveness of the UKBA's regional structure), an examination of the decision-making process for Tier Four applicants within the Points-Based System, an inspection of the processing of asylum claims (including dealing with the backlog), and another inquiry into the handling of customer complaints.[34]

24. We suggested that the Chief Inspector ran the risk of being overwhelmed with work because of the many serious problems faced by UKBA, and noted that he was about to take responsibility also for customs services, with the merger of that directorate into UKBA. The Chief Inspector assured us that he had ensured that he was provided with adequate financial and human resources to carry out the Inspectorate's first year of work.[35]

25. We note the Independent Chief Inspector's and the Minister's comments about the key role played by consulate staff in the granting of visas and the number of UKBA staff who work abroad.[36] We remain most concerned that the Independent Chief Inspector's role remains unclear. We have in previous reports highlighted UKBA's and its predecessor agencies' problems concerning the backlog of asylum applications. We regret that the Chief Inspector started his operation with visa inspections rather than with the areas of most concern to members of Parliament and their constituents. We look forward to receiving the report of his asylum-related inspection in February.

26. We previously expressed concern about the merger of so many roles into the one post of Independent Chief Inspector and suggested that in particular assuming the visa-related work of the Independent Monitor would be burdensome.[37] We regret that the Government did not heed our advice.

27. We note that the Independent Monitor was empowered to monitor only rejections of visas and not approvals. It has been reported that there are errors in up to 15% of decisions to reject visas (though some of these are minor administrative mistakes rather than substantive ones); and it is therefore possible that a similar number are being issued incorrectly.[38] We therefore welcome the Independent Chief Inspector's confirmation that he will examine both the process of issuing visas and the appropriateness of the decisions being made.[39]

28. We welcome the Independent Chief Inspector's proposal to review Tier Four of the Points-Based System, but regret that this review will not be completed until the end of next year.[40] We also welcome the more focused review of Tier Four being undertaken by the Home Office at the request of the Prime Minister.

1 Dated 14 June and 17 December 2007, 23 July and 8 December 2008 and 7 July and 19 October 2009. Only the first letter, of June 2006, and the letter of 8 December 2008 have been published to date: the first appears as Appendix 57 in Volume III in the Home Affairs Committee's Fifth Report of Session 2005-06, Immigration Control, HC 775; the December 2008 letter is appended to the Oral Evidence of 20 November 2008 on Immigration Issues, HC 1199 of session 2007-08. The last two letters, of 7 July and 19 October 2009, are published with this Report. The other letters have been deposited in the House of Commons Library. Back

2 Qq 276-277 Back

3 Oral evidence of 15 January 2008 under the title of Work of the Border and Immigration Agency, HC 224 of Session 2007-08; Oral Evidence of 20 November 2008, under the title Immigration Issues, HC 1199 of session 2007-08; Oral Evidence of 8 July 2009, 14 July 2009 and 4 November 2009, all published with this Report. Back

4 HC Deb, 19 July 2006, col 324 Back

5 7 July letter, paragraphs 21 and 22 Back

6 19 October letter, paragraph 17 Back

7 The letter adds the proviso: "Please note that the figures quoted are not provided under National Statistics protocols and have been derived from local management information. They are therefore provisional and subject to change." Back

8 19 October letter, para 13 Back

9 Table 1.1 Back

10 7 July letter, p.7 Because of rounding, the columns do not add up exactly. Back

11 Table 4.2 in both the July and the October letters Back

12 Qq 38, 50-51, Back