Introduction
1. Since 2006, we and our predecessor committee have
received regular updates from the UK Border Agency (in the form
of letters and subsequent evidence sessions) on issues facing
the Agency, including the deportation of foreign national prisoners
and the backlog in asylum cases. We publish with this report,
which covers the period of April-July 2011, the latest letter[1]
(dated 24 August 2011), and oral evidence given by Mr Jonathan
Sedgwick, then acting Chief Executive of the Agency and further
correspondence as a result of that evidence session.[2]
2. We have undertaken to examine the UK Border Agency
every four months meaning that the next period will be August-November
and then December-March. We ask the UK Border Agency for comparable
data and so are able to monitor any change in the standard of
work. The report follows a basic template in order to make it
accessible and allow our fellow members of Parliament and the
wider public to scrutinise the Agency with consistency.
Remuneration of staff
3. In our previous report on the work of the UK Border
Agency, we recommended that senior staff did not receive bonuses
in light of the economic crisis.[3]
This recommendation was not accepted and the arrangements for
financial year 2010-11 are set out below.
Officials | Salary
£'000
| Bonus Payments £'000
|
Lin Homer
chief executive
(until 9 January 2011)
| 160-165
(205-210 full year equivalent)
| 5-10 |
Jonathan Sedgwick
Deputy Chief Executive
Acting Chief Executive (from 10 January 2011)
| 105-110 | 5-10
|
Brodie Clark
Director Border Force
| 130-135 [4]
| 5-10 |
Matthew Coats
Director Immigration Group
| 145-150 | 5-10
|
Justin Holliday
Director Resource Management Group
| 130-135 | 5-10
|
Joe Dugdale
Director HR & Organisational Development
| 130-135 | 5-10
|
Tamara Finkelstein
Director of UK Border Agency Programme
(until 25 April 2010)
| 5-10
(85-90 full year equivalent)
| 0 |
Martin Peach
Director Intelligence
Group
| 105-110 | 0
|
David Wood
Director Criminality & Detention Group
| 100-105 | 5-10
|
Barbara Woodward
Director International Group
(from 4 March 2009)
| 100-105 | 5-10
|
Robert Yeldham
Director Communications
| 85-90 | 0-5
|
Jonathan Payne
Chief of Staff
(until 28 June 2009)
| 0 | 0
|
Zilla Bowell
Chief of Staff
(from 3 August 2009)
| 65-70 | 0-5
|
Philip Duffy
Acting Director Policy & Strategy
(from 10 January 2011)
| 15-20
(80-85 full year equivalent)
| 0 |
4. The appointment of Mr Rob Whiteman as the new
Chief Executive of the UK Border Agency was announced on 15 July.
In a previous report, we recommended that the Chief Executive's
annual salary should be significantly lower than the £208,000
his predecessor earned, and more in line with the Permanent Secretary
range.[5]
We therefore welcome the appointment of Mr Whiteman on a lower
salary of £175,000 and look forward to taking evidence from
him in December.
5. We consider it unacceptable that bonuses were
paid when the annual report and accounts show that £7 million
was spent writing off bad debts and £4 million was spent
on overpayments to staff and asylum claimants.[6]
When we questioned what percentage of illegal working civil penalties
had been collected in the financial year 2010-11, we were informed
that 56% had been collected.[7]
The level of waste at the UK Border Agency is unacceptable.
We recommend that the Government undertake and publish the results
of a detailed investigation into this and consider how the UK
Border Agency can improve its financial and data management.
Foreign National Prisoners
6. In 2006, it emerged that some 1,013 foreign national
prisoners who had served their sentences were released back in
to the community rather than being considered for deportation.
The UK Borders Act 2007 introduced an 'automatic deportation'
provision whereby the Secretary of State is required to make any
non-EEA foreign national prisoner who has received a sentence
of 12 months or more, or any custodial sentence for specified
serious crimes, subject to a deportation order (with certain exceptions).[8]
In our report published in January of this year we identified
the need to ensure that all eligible foreign nationals currently
serving sentences were removed from the UK expeditiously and,
wherever possible, were not held for long periods in prison at
the taxpayers' expense when they could be deported.[9]
When the Home Secretary came before us in September she stated
that
I can tell
the Committee that according to the most recent figures, in 2009-10,
under the last Government, there were 64 cases where a foreign
national prisoner had not been referred to them for consideration
for deportation. In 2010-11i.e. mainly under this Governmentthe
figure was 28, and that compares to that 1,013 in 2006.[10]
We note the considerable number of prisoners whose
deportation has been delayed by casework issues and by further
legal challenges. We suggest that the Government review these
areas to see if the deportation process can be streamlined.
7. We welcome the very significant reduction in
the number of foreign national prisoners who were released without
being considered for deportation, from 1,013 in 2006 to just 28
in 2010-11. In order for performance at the current level to be
maintained, the Agency will need to ensure that it communicates
regularly with prison services regarding the potential release
dates of prisoners. We are nonetheless concerned about the remaining
28 and ask the Agency to take all practicable steps to locate
them. We consider that with proper liaison between the HM Prison
Service and the Border Agency the numbers of foreign national
prisoners released without being considered for deportation will
be reduced to zero.
8. As regards those 5,012 foreign national prisoners
who finished serving their sentence in the financial year 2010-11,
the UK Border Agency have provided the following figures: as of
11 October 2011 some 3,248 had been removed, 471 had been allowed
to remain in the country and 1,300 were still outstanding as shown
in the graph below.
Figure 1: Foreign
National Prisoners who were released between 1 April 2010 and
31 March 2011
Those 1,300 outstanding are cases where there are
difficulties with their deportation including judicial challenges,
casework and compliance issues. Those issues are broken down in
the table below.
Outstanding cases | Total
|
Legal challenges and further criminal proceedings
| 300 |
Casework issues (including further representations, asylum claims, medical and children issues)
| 335 |
Compliance, identity and documentation issues
| 270 |
Other issues(including country situation, multiple barriers)
| 20 |
Unknown issues (data has not been recorded)
| 350 |
Total | 1,300
|
Figure 2: Foreign
national prisoners released, 2010/11
In follow up evidence, the UK Border Agency informed
us that of these 1,300 only 500 are being detained whilst their
deportation is being pursued.[11]
Figures recently published by the Independent Chief Inspector
of the UK Border Agency show that, in May 2011, a total of 3,775
former foreign national prisoners were living in the community.[12]
This includes the 800 prisoners from the cohort released in 2010-11
identified above, as well as those released in previous years.
The Independent Chief Inspector identified two main reasons for
failure to deportthose former prisoners whose country of
origin was considered unsafe, and those for whom there was difficulty
in obtaining the travel documents necessary for them to re-enter
their country of origin.[13]
The Chief Inspector's findings about the reasons for failures
to deport were based on a sample of 132 case files and they are
not wholly consistent with the figures supplied to us by the UK
Border Agency itself, which show that the single largest category
of deportation failure is those classified as "unknown",
accounting for 27% of the total. The fact that the Agency itself
does not know why it is unable to deport more than a quarter of
foreign national former prisoners is in itself cause for concern.
9. The UK Border Agency is considering whether
to deport 1,300 foreign national prisoners who were released in
2010-11. The fact that only 500 of these are detained is troubling,
and the Agency needs to provide a full and detailed explanation
for why they have released 800 foreign nationals who have previously
broken the law. It is unacceptable that in more than a quarter
of cases, the Agency is unable to explain why these foreign nationals
have not yet been removed. This is another example of poor data
management and inconsistent with the UK Border Agency's stated
commitment to transparency. The Agency must improve its systems
for recording difficulties in deporting former foreign national
prisoners.
10. One of the findings of the Chief Inspector, highlighted
in the report, was the fact that improved contact with UK Border
Agency immigration teams increased the number of foreign national
prisoners participating in the Early Removal System and the Facilitated
Returns Scheme. However, the Chief Inspector's discussions with
senior management led him to conclude that the Agency would not
be expecting case owners to visit prisons as standard due to 'insufficient
resources'.[14]
Given that the Chief Inspector estimates that two months post-prison
detention for a foreign national prisoner costs £6,600[15]
and in 2005, the National Audit Office estimated that a forced
removal would cost £11,000, the value of such a programme
seems high.
11. We recommend that the Agency undertake an
analysis of contact between case owners and foreign national prisoners.
If certain methods are found to increase the likelihood of foreign
national prisoners returning to their country of origin, they
ought to be invested in as a priority.
Asylum Cases
12. When the legacy backlog was publicised in 2006,
the then Home Secretary John Reid made a statement on the floor
of the House
In five years'
time, by the end of 2011, we intend to deal with 90 per cent [of
asylum applications] within six months, and we have set out plans
to achieve that. We will deal with the legacy of unresolved cases
in five years or less.[16]
That legacy was, at the time, believed to number
somewhere between 400,000 and 450,000 applications for asylum
which were described as being "electronic and paper records,
which ... are riddled with duplication and errors, and include
cases of individuals who have since died or left the country,
or are now EU citizens."[17]
In the letter dated 24 August, Mr Sedgwick informed us that the
Case Resolution Directorate (which dealt with the legacy cases)
had entered its final phase and would have reviewed the entire
caseload by the end of August 2011 at which point he would send
us updated findings.[18]
13. We received the update on 12 September 2011,
the day before Mr Sedgwick was due to give evidence to us. We
were informed that "the UK Border Agency completed its review
of all cases in the legacy cohort at the end of March 2011."
The chart below shows the rate of conclusion of the legacy files.
Figure 3: Estimated
size of asylum 'legacy' backlog since July 2006
14. The table below shows the breakdown of asylum
legacy cases concluded over the past year.
| November 2010
| March 2011 | September 2011
|
Allowed to remain | 139,000 (42%)
| 161,000 (40%) | 172,000 (36%)
|
Removed | 35,000 (11%)
| 38,000 (9%) | 37,500 (8%)
|
Other(duplicates, errors or controlled
archive)
| 160,500 (48%) | 205,500 (51%)
| 268,000 (56%) |
Total concluded | 334,500
| 403,500 | 479,000
|
Data compiled from previous reports
The "other" category has increased quite
substantially in terms of the percentage make up since November
2010. We examine the reason for this in the section on the controlled
archive below.
15. A total of 500,500 cases were reviewed as part
of the programme and the majority (455,000) had been fully concluded.[19]
Total number of reviewed cases in the legacy cohort
| 500,500 |
Total concluded | 479,000
|
Of which: |
|
Allowed to remain | 172,000 (36%)
|
Removed | 37,500 (8%)
|
Other(duplicates, errors or controlled
archive)
| 268,000 (56%)
Including 98,000 in the controlled archive.
A further 500 will be added if not traced
within the next 6 months.
|
Grants subject to final security check
| 3,000 |
Outstanding conclusion |
18,000 |
Ev 12
The last category, outstanding conclusion, includes
ongoing litigation, impending prosecution, incomplete legal or
criminal proceedings, non-compliance, and offenders from difficult-to-remove
countries.[20] These
18,000 cases were transferred from the Case Resolution Directorate
to the Case Assurance and Audit Unit where casework will continue
until they are resolved.
16. When we questioned whether the legacy programme
could be described as 'completed' if there were still 18,000 cases
yet to be concluded, Mr Sedgwick responded that
There are
18,000 cases where removal has still to be completed. Removal
takes some time. There are documentation issues and there are
legal challenges. Those 18,000 cases we are proceeding to try
to remove. So therefore, you will see that number of removals
going up over a period.[21]
When we pointed out that meant they had not been
'dealt with' by July 2011 as the then Home Secretary had pledged
they would be, Mr Sedgwick disagreed, pointing out that all decisions
had been made and those involved informed.[22]
Mr Sedgwick later reiterated that the commitment
was "always to decide the cases", not to "remove
every single one of [them] by this summer[...]. That process was
always going to take longer."[23]
17. In his statement to Parliament in 2006, the
then Home Secretary suggested that the Home Office would deal
with the legacy backlog in five years or less. They have concluded
455,000 cases, however we do not consider the 18,000 cases which
have received an initial decision but are awaiting removal as
'dealt with'. No matter how those at the UK Border Agency interpreted
that pledge, it was not a pledge that all cases would have a decision
but rather that all cases would be concluded. We recommend that
the Agency establish a challenging target date for the completion
of these removals in any case no later than 31 March 2012 and
we expect Mr Whiteman to present us with a time table for completion
when he next gives evidence.
18. We are also concerned by the transfer of 18,000
outstanding files from the Case Resolution Directorate to the
Case Assurance and Audit Unit. This action risks giving the impression
that the UK Border Agency are using bureaucratic terms to hide
the fact that they were unable to meet the July 2011 deadline.
We recommend the Government investigate whether this transfer
was simply a name change or whether the files were transferred
to a different location to be worked on by different staff. We
note that in general the claim that the backlog has been dealt
with conflicts with the experience of MPs in terms of what they
are told in response to enquiries about individual cases.
Controlled Archive
19. Fifty-six per cent of the legacy backlog were
classified as 'other'. These comprised duplicates, errors, EU
nationals and cases placed in the controlled archive. The categories
of 'duplicates' and 'EU nationals' are self-explanatory. The then
Minister for Identity, Meg Hillier MP, explained in a letter in
March 2009 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."[24]
98,000 cases were put into the controlled archive which contains
cases in which, despite its best endeavours, the UK Border Agency
has been unable to trace the applicant. The cases are checked
against watchlists for a period of six months before they are
considered to have been 'concluded'.
20. This was a substantial increase when compared
to the totals given in previous evidence.
| November 2010
| March 2011 | September 2011
|
Number of Asylum legacy cases placed in the controlled archive
| 18,000 | 40,500
| 98,000 |
Data compiled from previous reports
This shows that the controlled archive increased
by 80,000 asylum backlog cases in 10 months.
21. As well as those 98,000 asylum cases there are
also a number of migration cases which have been allocated to
the controlled archive. These cases are from a review of around
40,000 case files which we were was informed about via the UK
Border Agency update letter in October 2009.
We are also
increasingly giving our attention to our older, archived, non
asylum cases, where we have dealt with the application, but where
we have no formal record that the individual has left the country.
In the last few months we have begun the process of reviewing
these files to consider if any further action is necessary or
possible, Around 40,000 of these older, archived, files fall into
this category. These will all be reviewed and checked against
watchlists and the Police National Computer.
These files will, in the main, belong to pre-2003
(i.e. preceding the introduction of our charging regime) cases
of visa overstayers or those to whom we have refused an extension
of leave, such as students.
[25]
22. Our predecessor Committee asked the then Minister
and the then Chief Executive of the UK Border Agency, Ms Lin Homer
about these cases in November 2009. The then-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"[26],
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 than 40,000 people. We were told that all 40,000 had
been checked against the watch list and Police National Computer
to identify anyone likely to cause harm.
23. The UK Border Agency had also assessed a sample
of 800 files. 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 were seeking to extend some kind of temporary leave
to visit the UK. 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.
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]
24. When Mr Sedgwick gave evidence to us on 13 September
he confirmed that 26,000 of those 40,000 cases had been moved
to the controlled archive.[28]
This means that 65% of those cases which we were told would be
resolved, have not been and the UK Border Agency is now unable
to find those applicants.
25. Whilst we appreciate the difficulties involved
in tracing people with whom the Agency have lost contact, usually
for a period of several years, it is clear that the controlled
archive has become a dumping ground for cases on which the Agency
has given up. The controlled archive has increased significantly
as the deadlines for the legacy backlog and the migration case
review have approached. From 18,000 files in November 2010, the
archive now contains 124,000 files, roughly equivalent to the
population of Cambridge. With the end of the legacy backlog and
review of the outstanding migration cases, we see no reason why
the size of the controlled archive should increase further. We
recommend that the Agency produce clear and specific guidance
on the controlled archive which covers:
- how often the files will be
reassessed;
- how many staff will work on reassessing files
in the controlled archive; and,
- when, if ever, files will be closed without
the applicant being located.
26. We also object to the term 'controlled archive'.
It is another instance of a bureaucratic term which hides the
true nature of a government department's activity and is designed
to deflect attention away from it. The controlled archive would
be more appropriately referred to as an archive of lost applicants.
Enforced Removals
27. Since our previous evidence session with Mr Sedgwick,
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons has published two reports which
focussed on the escort and deportation of detainees on flights
to Jamaica and Nigeria. Both reports highlighted the behaviour
of the contracted escorts as cause for alarm. In the report on
removals to Jamaica, the Chief Inspector was particularly concerned
that
some staff
used unprofessional language, swearing freely, telling offensive
jokes and indulging in sweeping generalisations about national
characteristics. The vulnerability of detainees during the process
of removal is not to be taken so lightly, and the behaviour of
all staff representing UK authorities should reflect better training
and higher standards.[29]
This was reinforced in the report on removals to
Nigeria where the Chief Inspector reported that
escorts sometimes
spoke to detainees in patronising terms and inspectors were very
concerned at the highly offensive and sometime racist language
they heard staff use between themselves. Quite apart from the
offence this language may have caused to those who overheard it,
it suggested a shamefully unprofessional and derogatory attitude
that did not give confidence that had a more serious incident
occurred, it would always have been effectively dealt with.[30]
In particular, the report highlighted an incident
where as "one detainee tried to explain he had spent most
of his life in London, UK escorts mocked his accent."[31]
Such inappropriate and demeaning behaviour on the part of escorts
is shocking. A person who is being deported is often leaving behind
family and friends to return to a country which may now seem remote
to them. For some individuals, it is a highly stressful moment
in their life, at which some may be acutely vulnerable. They should
be treated in a professional manner.
28. During the evidence session, we asked Mr Sedgwick
whether he could reassure us that detainees were being treated
with respect. He responded
Clearly, I
was extremely disturbed to receive those two reports. It was serious,
unprofessional and unacceptable behaviour to the individuals by
our contractors. We have obviously raised that with the contractors.
The individuals concerned have been dealt with and new processes
have been put in place in relation to supervising and ensuring
that better standards are observed in future, but that is an area
that we will very much be keeping under close review because,
as you would expect, we take it very seriously.[32]
However, given that both reports make mention of
UK Border Agency representatives who were present on flights,
we feel that all matters of this kind should have been dealt with
prior to the two reports being published several months later.
The need for respect towards detainees ought to be ingrained in,
and should be standard practice for, the staff of the UK Border
Agency. The death of Jimmy Mubenga during deportation last year
damaged the reputation of the UK Border Agency and put the system
of enforced removals under considerable scrutiny.[33]
29. We have long been concerned by the conduct
of staff towards detainees during enforced removal and have previously
questioned contractors, the UK Border Agency and ministers about
the issue. We are particularly concerned by reports of the questionable
behaviour of contracted staff taking place after the system was
put under scrutiny and stated to have been reformed following
the death of Jimmy Mubenga. We intend to take evidence from the
Chief Inspector of Prisons regarding his recent reports on the
treatment of detainees and will produce a report on enforced removals
in the near future. However, it should be expected that appropriate
disciplinary action should be taken at all times against those
who behave in ways that clearly are not acceptable. Companies
involved should be made aware that further incidents as described
in previous paragraphs could lead to the loss of contracts with
the UK Border Agency.
Intelligence
30. The UK Border Agency receives over 2,000 reports
from members of the public a week, mainly regarding an individual's
alleged transgression of the immigration laws.[34]
The Agency encourages the public to report those they suspect
of breaking immigration or customs laws, giving relevant contact
advice on their website. This method was recently supported by
the Prime Minister when, during his speech on immigration, he
proposed that everyone in the country should
help with
this, including by reporting suspected illegal immigrants to our
Border Agency through the Crimestoppers phone line or the Border
Agency website. Together I do believe we can reclaim our borders
and send illegal immigrants home.[35]
31. On 13 May 2011 the Independent Chief Inspector
of the UK Border Agency published a report entitled 'Preventing
and detecting immigration and customs offences: A thematic inspection
of how the UK Border Agency receives and uses intelligence'.[36]The
Report found that the Agency's process for handling allegations,
which involved all allegations being entered onto a national database
before a decision was taken whether or not to pursue them, was
followed inconsistently. The report details instances where allegations
are recorded only onto local databases because recording information
onto the national IT system was too time-consuming.[37]
There were also examples of allegations which were determined
to require no further action being omitted from the national database,
meaning that information which might eventually prove useful was
not being made available to staff within all intelligence units.
32. The Chief Inspector reviewed 70 specific cases,
and found that the Agency did not systematically record the outcome
of an allegation which required further action. One case study
detailed an allegation regarding the arrival of 12 'bogus students'
from Sri Lanka at Heathrow the following day. The Agency recorded
that the information had been sent to the intelligence unit at
Heathrow Airport but there was no record of whether the passengers
had been intercepted or questioned nor whether they had been refused
entry or allowed in to the country. [38]
33. As a result, the first recommendation of the
Chief Inspector's Report was that the UK Border Agency "records
the outcome of allegations and assesses how often they lead to
the development of intelligence and subsequent operations to prevent
or detect immigration and customs offences." The UK Border
Agency accepted this recommendation, acknowledging that "we
recognise the importance of allegations to the Agency's work and
therefore fully accept this recommendation."[39]
When we asked the Agency how many individuals had been removed
as a direct result of action taken by intelligence units in 2011,
we were told that they "do not hold the specific data requested;
intelligence units within the Agency provide intelligence packages
for enforcement teams, who carry out removals for the Agency."[40]
We were told that the reason that the Agency was unable to provide
this information was because the allegations and removals information
was kept on two different databases, but that work was being undertaken
to link the two.
34. It is unacceptable that the UK Border Agency
is unable to give us more detailed information about the role
that intelligence plays in protecting the UK's borders. The Independent
Chief Inspector's report suggested that there was inconsistency
in the way that intelligence was collected and used and this is
also unacceptable. We recognise that the Agency is trying to improve
the way it uses intelligence but we feel that in order for its
staff and the public to appreciate the importance of individual
allegations, the outcomes must be demonstrated.
35. The Prime Minister has called on the public
to report those believed to be guilty of immigration offences.
We strongly support the Government in this stance but there is
no point if the UK Border Agency does not use the intelligence
provided. We believe that the vigilance of the public ought to
be rewarded by the publication of recorded outcomes. We recommend
that the UK Border Agency produces a timetable for the improvement
of intelligence processes which contains information on:
- how the agency will process
information;
- how many staff will be working on intelligence;
and
- the date that the intelligence database will
be linked with the recommendations database.
36. We further recommend that the Agency produce
quarterly figures showing:
- How many 'tip-offs' they have
received;
- on how many cases they have taken action;
and
- how many people have been removed following
a 'tip-off'.
Immigration Tribunals
37. In previous reports we have drawn attention to
the high number of appeals which have been allowed against the
UK Border Agency in both immigration and asylum appeals. The information
provided to us by the Agency states that there were 154, 700 appeals
heard last year. 41% of appeals were allowed (the Agency lost),
44% were dismissed (the Agency won) and 15% of appeals were withdrawn.
The results are set out in more detail below:
| Allowed
| Dismissed |
Withdrawn |
| No. |
% of total | No.
| % of total | No.
| % of total |
Asylum | 4,600
| 27% | 11,400
| 67% | 1,100
| 6% |
Managed Migration | 22,800
| 50% | 17,800
| 39% | 4,600
| 10% |
Entry Clearance | 12,700
| 39% | 12,300
| 38% | 7,700
| 23% |
Family Visit Visa | 22,400
| 38% | 25,900
| 44% | 10,400
| 18% |
Deport and others | 280
| 27% | 680
| 64% | 97
| 9% |
First Tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
| 62,800 | 41%
| 68,100 | 44%
| 23,800 | 15%
|
Ev 193
38. The UK Border Agency have said that one of the
reason they lose so many cases is because new evidence is often
submitted at appeal. There have recently been changes to the appeals
system intended to restrict the type of further evidence which
can be presented at appeal. Mr Sedgwick assured us that this would
greatly improve their success rate at appeal and that there was
already a significant improvement of Agency performance at appeals.[41]
The figures for successful appeals at immigration tribunals
are worrying. However we have been informed that the success rate
of the UK Border Agency will improve following statutory changes
restricting new evidence being introduced at appeal. There is
no doubt that the outcome of appeals would be improved if the
Agency were to improve the quality of its representation. We expect
the Agency to be represented at all appeal hearings so that the
case for refusal can be properly made.
Exclusion from the UK
39. The Home Secretary can exclude individuals[42]
from entering the United Kingdom. Exclusions can be on grounds
of National Security, Unacceptable Behaviour and other non-conducive
grounds, which includes serious and organised crime, foreign policy
and war crimes.[43] There
have been 398 exclusion notices since 2005. In June 2011, Mr Raed
Salah, whom the Home Secretary had banned from entering the country,
arrived at Heathrow and managed to enter the country without any
opposition from UK Border Agency officials working at the airport.
It was further contended that Mr Salah had not been informed that
he had been banned from the country. There was also some confusion
as to how long it took to establish that Mr Salah was actually
in the countrywhen the Home Secretary came before the Committee
on 5 July, she was unable to provide the timeline of events: when
she signed the exclusion order, when Mr Salah entered the country
and when she was told that he had done so.[44]
We are still awaiting the timeline from the Home Secretary, four
months later. We have been in regular contact with the Home Office
and have been informed that the letter requires further consideration
by the Home Secretary. Considering we have asked for factual information,
we are puzzled by the length of time we have had to wait. We have
now obtained the timeline ourselves from the High Court. We find
this approach to transparency a serious matter.
Timeline for exclusion order of Raed Salah Mahajna
23 June 2011Home Secretary takes decision to exclude Salah from the UK on grounds that his presence is not conducive to the public good.
- Exclusion order (letter) was address to Salah and efforts were made to serve him in Israelthese had not succeeded before he left Tel Aviv
25 June 2011Salah granted leave to enter the UK as visitor for 6 monthsimmigration officer had no idea he had been issued with a banning order.
- Salah had a return ticket for 5 July 2011
28 June 2011 (11pm)Salah arrested and deportation order served
1 July 2011Appeal papers lodged
18 JulySalah released on bail with stringent conditions
|
40. The Home Secretary did inform us that HM Inspector
of Constabulary had undertaken an investigation and identified
six missed opportunities for intervention.[45]
The investigation had produced eight recommendations for the UK
Border Agency (which can be found in the evidence attached to
this report) and the Home Secretary has accepted all of these
recommendations. Compounding this failure, Mr Salah has recently
won damages from the Home Office after it emerged that he had
not been given sufficient reason for his arrest and detention
until 30 June, two days after he had been arrested.[46]
Mr Raed Salah is currently on bail and fighting extradition from
the UK.
41. The case of Mr Raed Salah highlighted a number
of flaws in the UK's border control. Six opportunities for intervention
were missed. These mistakes were then compounded by the lack of
information provided to Mr Salah following his arrest, which mean
that the Home Office will now have to pay damages to a man who
the Home Secretary believed should never have been able to enter
the country in the first place. This is inexcusable and unacceptable.
When the Home Secretary signs an exclusion order, it ought to
be served. We urge the UK Border Agency to implement urgently
the eight recommendations of the HMIC to ensure that this never
happens again.
Student visas and 'bogus' colleges
42. Earlier this year, we published a report on Government
proposals to change the immigration rules on Tier 4, the study
route. The number of international students has increased greatly
over the last few yearsin the year up to September 2006,
some 230,355 people came here to study, in the same period in
2010, that had increased to 355,386. An increase of 125,031, this
is equivalent to a 54% increase in the number of student visas
issued. In the same period, the number of those applying for work
and family visas has dropped leaving study as the main cause of
immigration, as shown by the table below.
Figure 4: Entry clearance
visas issued (excluding visitor and transit visas) in year to
date shown
43. The answers to our questions on students and
bogus colleges, along with areas of concern highlighted by the
Committee can be found in the attached evidence. One of the reasons
giving for reforming the study route "to ensure that those
who enter on a student visa genuinely come here to study."
We asked for information on how many visas had been refused based
on fraudulent evidencewe were informed that out of the
16,605 refused applications in April-July 2011, 2,359 were refused
on the basis of fraudulent evidence. We also asked how many students
who had broken the terms of their visa had had their leave curtailed
or been deported. The UK Border Agency did not have the statistics
to answer the question.
44. In the previous Parliament, our predecessor Committee
published a report which examined 'bogus colleges'colleges
which are set up to sponsor people who come to the UK for purposes
other than genuine study. We asked a number of questions and we
wanted to highlight several answers along with our response below:
a) How many 'bogus colleges' have been closed
or removed from the register in that period;
The UK Border
Agency does not recognise the term "bogus college" and
in any event has no powers to close a college.
We are dismayed that the Agency do not appear to
recognise the term given the amount of press coverage 'bogus colleges'
have received. It is especially concerning given that our predecessor
Committee held an inquiry entitled 'Bogus colleges'[47]
at which the then Minister for Immigration gave evidence. The
current Minister for Immigration also referred to 'bogus colleges'
when he gave evidence to us as part of our inquiry on student
visas.[48]
b) How many sponsors have been fined for misuse
of their licence in that period; and how many sponsors have been
prosecuted for misuse of their licence in that period;
The UK Border
Agency does not have a power to fine or prosecute a sponsor for
the misuse of its licence.
Instead we are informed that Sponsors may have their
licence downgraded restricting their ability to sponsor new non-EEA
students. Re-ratings are based on compliance issues which were
not considered serious enough to warrant suspension or revocation
of the licence." They confirmed that the Agency had suspended
76 licences and revoked 11 licences.[49]
We are surprised by this statement as in evidence to our previous
inquiries on 'bogus colleges' the Home Office stated that individuals
who "facilitate the commission of a breach of immigration
law by a non-EU citizen" can be prosecuted under the Immigration
Act 1971.[50]
45. We cannot understand why the UK Border Agency
is unable to tell us how many students had their leave curtailed
or were deported for breaking the terms of their visa. We are
surprised that the Agency is unaware of the term 'bogus college'
as it has been used by Ministers and this Committee. We are also
shocked if the worst punishment a sponsor who misuses their licence
faces is the revocation of their licence, although previous evidence
seems to contradict this statement. We would ask the Agency to
confirm this is the case and clarify this point. On previous occasions
we have come across anecdotal evidence that the Agency is not
always clear, fair and consistent in its dealing with colleges,
and while we support efforts to deal with wrongdoers and institutions
that fall below the required standard, we are satisfied that most
colleges provide an important educational service and contribute
to their local economy. It is therefore important that the Agency
understands the need to maintain a proper balance and is helpful
to genuine educational institutions.
MPs' correspondence
46. One of the reasons that we maintain such strict
scrutiny of the UK Border Agency is that immigration cases constitute
a huge amount of MPs' caseload. When we visited the UK Border
Agency headquarters in Croydon, we were informed that they had
received 66,000 letters from MPs and Peers in the previous year.
When we suggested that the situation could be improved if the
Agency were more accessible to applicants, there was no acknowledgement
that the Agency might be difficult to engage with. MPs do not
solicit immigration and asylum casesevery case which an
MP takes up with the Agency represents a constituent in need who
has exhausted the other options which are available to them.[51]
The involvement of an MP in a constituent's case often comes
as a last resort, when other approaches have failed. The high
degree of correspondence between the UK Border Agency and MPs
is evidence of failure earlier in the process. We intend to examine
this further the next time the Chief Executive of the Agency comes
before the Committee in December. In the meantime, we would welcome
evidence from MPs and their staff about their dealings with the
Agency.
47. In evidence, Mr Sedgwick stated that all legacy
cases had been decided and that decision had been communicated
to the applicant. When some members announced that they had a
number of cases where no decision had been received, he invited
them to send him those cases.[52]
He also acknowledged that it was important that MPs involved with
immigration cases be kept up to date and informed when decisions
are made so that they can close their files.[53]
The Chair then wrote to MPs informing them that all legacy cases
ought to have been concluded and that any MPs awaiting decisions
could contact the UK Border Agency. Hundreds of cases have subsequently
been sent to the Agency. We recommend that it become UK Border
Agency policy that if an MP becomes involved in a case then the
Agency automatically copies the MP in on any correspondence to
the applicant. This will enable MPs to close cases once they have
been resolved. This would be both courteous and efficient
and should be acted upon at once.
48. One of the more recent innovations to improve
issues with MPs correspondence has been the MP account managers
which are a point of contact for MPs in the regions. This could
lead to improvements, but many MPs find that the initial impact
has not been entirely beneficial. We welcome the introduction
of MP account managers but they have to have authority within
the Agency and be able to obtain information quickly and accurately
in order to provide an improved service to MPs. In order to aid
our fellow parliamentarians, we have attached the list of the
account managers of each region to this report. We will
be asking MPs whether the new system has provided the improvements
that are being claimed for it. If the improvements we wish to
see take place, it could well be there would be a reduction in
the 66,000 letters from MPs and peers in a single year.
Government pledge to cut net
migration
49. The Prime Minister pledged, prior to the 2010
election, to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands, rather
than the hundreds of thousands that have become the norm in recent
years. Achieving a reduction in net migration is made more difficult
by the fact that reduced numbers of UK residents are emigrating
while increasing numbers of EU citizens are coming into the UK.
In a previous report, we recommended that the Government should
exclude student numbers in their statistics about immigrants,
since a student only becomes an immigrant when he or she seeks
settlement. We appreciate that students are included in the UN
statistics, but we believe this to be mistaken and to unduly inflate
the targets which the government has to meet in order to deliver
its commitment. We maintain this view although so far it has not
been accepted. As the graph below shows, in 2006 some 207,000
British citizens emigrated. By 2009 that number had fallen to
140,000.
Figure 5: Long-term
emigration from the United Kingdom by nationality, 1991-2009
Meanwhile, as the figures below demonstrate, between
1999 and 2009, immigration from EU nationals increased by over
100,000 whereas immigration from countries outside the EU only
increased by 30,000 in the same period. In terms of percentage,
EU immigration doubled, going from 14.5% of the total in 1999
to 29.5% by 2009.
Long-term immigration to the United Kingdom by nationality, 1991-2009
|
|
| British
| EU | Non-EU
| Total |
| British | EU
| Non-EU | Total
|
| | |
| | | |
| | |
1999 | 115
| 66 | 273
| 454 | |
25.3% | 14.5%
| 60.1% | 100.0%
|
2000 | 99
| 63 | 316
| 478 | |
20.7% | 13.2%
| 66.1% | 100.0%
|
2001 | 110
| 58 | 313
| 481 | |
22.9% | 12.1%
| 65.1% | 100.0%
|
2002 | 98
| 61 | 356
| 515 | |
19.0% | 11.8%
| 69.1% | 100.0%
|
2003 | 100
| 66 | 344
| 510 | |
19.6% | 12.9%
| 67.5% | 100.0%
|
2004 | 89
| 130 | 369
| 588 | |
15.1% | 22.1%
| 62.8% | 100.0%
|
2005 | 98
| 152 | 316
| 566 | |
17.3% | 26.9%
| 55.8% | 100.0%
|
2006 | 83
| 170 | 344
| 597 | |
13.9% | 28.5%
| 57.6% | 100.0%
|
2007 | 74
| 195 | 305
| 574 | |
12.9% | 34.0%
| 53.1% | 100.0%
|
2008 | 85
| 198 | 307
| 590 | |
14.4% | 33.6%
| 52.0% | 100.0%
|
2009 | 96
| 167 | 303
| 566 | |
17.0% | 29.5%
| 53.5% | 100.0%
|
Figure 6: Long-term
immigration to the United Kingdom by nationality, 1991-2009
The chart below demonstrates that emigration has
not kept in line in with immigration. As a consequence, net migration
has increased substantially from 163,000 in 2008, to 198,000 in
2009 to 239,000 in 2010.[54]
Figure 7: Long-term
net migration to the United Kingdom by nationality, 1991-2009
50. One of the ways that this figure could be reduced
is if those who overstayed their visas were deported. In March
this year, the National Audit Office published a report which
estimated there could be as many as 181,000 migrants in the UK
whose visas have expired since December 2008.[55]
Scrutiny of the UK Border Agency
51. The UK Border Agency is an executive agency of
the Home Office and so falls within the remit of our Committee.
We take our scrutiny of this agency extremely seriously and so
we require that the Agency provides us with updates on a range
of performance measures every four months. On 24 August, we received
our latest letter from the UK Border Agency. In response to 10
of our questions, the Agency referred us to previously published
figures available on their website.
52. The Government's own guidance on the provision
of information to select committees is quite clear. The Ministerial
Code states that
Ministers
have a duty to Parliament to account, and be held to account,
for the policies, decisions and actions of their departments and
agencies.[56]
The Osmotherly Rules state that
The Government
is committed to being as open and as helpful as possible with
Select Committees. The presumption is that requests for information
from Select Committees will be agreed to.[57]
This is reinforced in the draft Cabinet Manual, which
notes that "Ministers and civil servants [...] supply written
evidence [to select committees] when it is requested".[58]
53. The history of the UK Border Agency (and its
predecessors) is chequered and a number of failings, including
the scandal of foreign national prisoners and the backlog of asylum
cases, have been exposed by select committees of this House.
54. When we received the letter with the required
data attached it was mostly in spreadsheet form and was not easily
accessible. We have attached the letter as evidence to our report
and have included the annexes as they appeared. The UK Border
Agency's provision of information to this committee falls short
of the standards that the House is entitled to expect and on which
the Government itself insists. The Agency has certainly not been
"as open and helpful as possible", as civil service
guidance requires. There is every risk that the Agency's failure
to provide us with the information we require, in a format which
is appropriate for our needs and within the time requested will
undermine effective Parliamentary scrutiny of the Agency's work.
We hope that the standard of information provided by the Agency
will improve in response to this Report. If it does not, then
we will seek the information from the Home Secretary in person,
in accordance with the principles set out in the Ministerial Code
and related guidance on the provision of information to select
committees.
55. The UK Border Agency comes before us three times
a year, more often than the Home Secretary or the Permanent Secretary,
both of whom are expected to appear twice yearly. A further reason
that we require the UK Border Agency to give evidence to us on
such a frequent basis is that these evidence sessions usually
require quite a degree of follow up. Despite the scandals of
both foreign national prisoners and the legacy backlog happening
in 2006, they have still not been completely resolved five years
later. Immigration is an issue which affects the safety, the social
cohesion and the economy of Britain as well as its standing on
the world stage. For that reason we will continue to hold sessions
with the UK Border Agency every four months or possibly even more
frequently.
1 Ev 15-404 Back
2
Ev 409 Back
3
Home Affairs Committee, Ninth Report of Session 2010-12, The
work of the UK Border Agency (November 2010-March 2011), HC
929, para 39 Back
4
Mr Clark also received benefits in kind worth £2,500. Back
5
Home Affairs Committee, Fourth Report of Session 2010-12, The
work of the UK Border Agency, HC 587, para 16 Back
6
UK Border Agency, UK Border Agency annual report and accounts,
7 July 2011, Pg 79,81 and 93 Back
7
Ev 410 Back
8
Sections 32 & 33. The serious crimes are those specified by
order of the Secretary of State under section 72(4)(a) of the
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Back
9
Home Affairs Committee, Fourth Report of Session 2010-12, The
work of the UK Border Agency, HC 587 para 2 Back
10
Uncorrected transcript of oral evidence taken before the Home
Affairs Committee on 8 September 2011, HC (2010-12) 1456-ii, Q231 Back
11
Ev 411 Back
12
Independent Chief Inspector of the UK Border Agency, A thematic
inspection of how the UK Border Agency manages foreign national
prisoners, 27 October 2011, Pg 3 Back
13
Independent Chief Inspector of the UK Border Agency, A thematic
inspection of how the UK Border Agency manages foreign national
prisoners, 27 October 2011, Pg 16 Back
14
Ibid., Pg 25 Back
15
Ibid., Pg 12 Back
16
HC Deb 25 July 2006 col. 736 Back
17
HC Deb 19 July 2006 col. 324 Back
18
Ev 15 Back
19
Ev 12 Back
20
Ev 12 Back
21
Q20 Back
22
Q21 Back
23
Q25 Back
24
Letter to the Home Affairs Committee, dated 25 March 2009 Back
25
Home Affairs Committee, The Work of the UK Border Agency,
HC (2009-10) 105-II Ev 39, Back
26
HC (2009-10) 105, Q213 Back
27
HC (2009-10) 105, Q237 Back
28
Q83 Back
29
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, Inspection of escort and removals
to Jamaica, July 2011, Pg 4 Back
30
Ibid., Pg 4 Back
31
Ibid., Pg 4 Back
32
Q78 Back
33
HL Deb 20 Oct 2010 col. 826 Back
34
Independent Chief Inspector of the UK Border Agency, Preventing
and detecting immigration and custom offences: A thematic inspection
of how the UK Border Agency receives and uses intelligence, 13
May 2011, Pg 9 Back
35
www.number10.gov.uk/news/prime-ministers-speech-on-immigration/ Back
36
Independent Chief Inspector of the UK Border Agency, Preventing
and detecting immigration and custom offences: A thematic inspection
of how the UK Border Agency receives and uses intelligence, 13
May 2011, Pg 6 Back
37
Ibid., Pg 10 Back
38
Ibid., Pg 12 Back
39
Ibid., Pg 3 Back
40
Ev 413 Back
41
Q8 Back
42
The power to exclude a non-EEA foreign national is non-statutory
and is exercised by the Secretary of State in person. It is applied
in cases where the Secretary of State considers that the exclusion
of an individual from the UK is conducive to the public good.
The power to exclude EEA nationals is statutory. It derives from
the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 and
subsequently by the Immigration (European Economic Area) (Amendment)
Regulations 2009. This is applied in cases where the Secretary
of State considers that exclusion of an EEA national or family
member of an EEA national is justified on the grounds of public
policy, public security or public health." Back
43
Ev 418 Back
44
Home Affairs Committee, The Work of the Home Secretary, HC
(2010-12) 1372-i, Q11-15 Back
45
Ev 418 Back
46
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/8799574/Palestinian-wins-damages-after-Theresa-May-ordered-his-detention.html Back
47
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmhaff/595/595.pdf Back
48
Uncorrected transcript of oral evidence taken before the Home
Affairs Committee on 8 September 2011, HC (2010-12) 1456-ii, Q238 Back
49
Ev 45 Back
50
Home Affairs Committee, Bogus colleges, HC (2008-09) 595,
Ev 25 Back
51
Q39 Back
52
Q27 Back
53
Q30 Back
54
www.number10.gov.uk/news/prime-ministers-speech-on-immigration/ Back
55
National Audit Office, Immigration: the Points Based System
- Work Routes (HC 819) 15 March 2011 pg 32 Back
56
Cabinet Office, May 2010, paragraph 1.2.b. Back
57
Cabinet Office, Departmental Evidence and Response to Select
Committees, July 2005, paragraph 68. Back
58
Cabinet Office, February 2011, paragraph 196. Back
|