Documents considered by the Committee on 22 January 2014 - European Scrutiny Committee Contents

Data Sources for Evidence Base Provided to the Commission


Both sets of evidence provided to the Commission are attached below. Full details of sources are provided within the documents themselves. However, for convenience, the full range of sources is listed below:

ONS Labour Market Statistics

ONS National Insurance Number allocations to adult overseas nationals entering the UK

Internal data on Section 24 reports received by the Home Office (which are one indicator of suspected sham marriages)

Details of specific sham marriage facilitation prosecutions

Details of high-profile sham marriage cases

Volumes of ongoing sham marriage operations in the North-West region

A sampling exercise of cases processed by a Home Office casework team (week commencing 7 October 2013)

A Home Office internal study of abusive applications for EEA family permits

Home Office management information on abuse of European Union documentation

Home Office enforced removal statistics (estimated and subject to caveats)

Ministry of Justice statistics on nationalities of the UK prison population (data subject to caveats)

Qualitative evidence and operational knowledge through case-study reporting by Immigration Enforcement Teams and the Police

Volumes of correspondence on free movement abuse received by the Home Office

Details of Operation Golf cases

Europol report: "Trafficking of Human Beings in the European Union"

Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre report (October 2010)]

Council of the Baltic Sea States (CBSS) report on Children trafficked for exploitation in begging and criminality (February 2013)

Evidence of Fraud and Abuse of Free Movement in the UK (Submitted to the Commission on 16 September 2013)

1. Introduction

In view of the proposed discussion at the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 5 December, this note sets out evidence of fraud and abuse of free movement rights.

The UK considers that at present the legal provisions available to Member States in tackling abuse and fraud of free movement are not sufficient to effectively deal with the issue. The UK has raised concerns at attempts to downplay the problems cited as not being serious or widespread. Claims that abuse of free movement is not widespread ignore the reality that such abuse exists, and if not dealt with effectively is likely to increase. The UK considers that the fact that such abuse is possible under current conditions is sufficient to warrant effective action. The existence of serious fraud and abuse of free movement also has a serious and deleterious impact on the public perception of free movement.

The issue of fraud and abuse in free movement presents a cost to the UK in terms of fraudulently claimed social security benefits and access to public services, such as education and healthcare by giving access to persons who are not genuinely entitled to such services. It also serves to undermine the UK immigration system, providing a route for persons who wish to circumvent legitimate immigration control to fraudulently claim a right of residence.

However, it should above all be acknowledged that the organised fraud and abuse in free movement of persons often involves a vulnerable EU national victim who is tricked, coerced or forced into taking part in the fraud for the financial gain of others. Examples of this are set out below. The UK considers that a failure to acknowledge and address legitimate concerns regarding organised fraud and abuse of free movement not only damages the concept of free movement, but neglects the rights of vulnerable EU nationals to be protected from such exploitation.

The Commission has previously asserted that the evidence provided by some Member States about identified abuse shows that national authorities are making use of the powers to detect, investigate and sanction cases of abuse. However, this view fails to acknowledge the effect of the limitations on Member States to effectively prevent such abuse from occurring. For example, in one of the cases below involving organised benefit fraud, an estimated £2.9million in social security benefits was paid out by the UK authorities in fraudulent claims. While a successful prosecution was brought against the perpetrators, in reality the UK is likely to reclaim only a small proportion of the money claimed. Furthermore, the resources required to investigate and take action in such cases are considerable.

2. Marriages of Convenience


It is a long-established area of abuse for non-EU nationals to enter into a marriage of convenience or 'sham marriage' in order to gain a right to remain in the UK, either by marrying a UK national or settled person and seeking leave to remain under the Immigration Rules, or by entering into a sham marriage with an EU citizen and fraudulently claiming a right of residence under Directive 2004/38/EC.


The option of applying for documentation as the family member of an EU citizen presents the more attractive option for persons seeking to circumvent the UK Immigration Rules. This is due to a number of factors, including the considerably lower fee attached to the application and the limitations placed on Member States in terms of the evidence that can be required from family members of EU citizens.


For example, whereas a spouse of a British citizen will have to submit evidence of cohabitation, evidence that the relationship is genuine and subsisting and also demonstrate that the British citizen meets the minimum income requirement in order to support the applicant, a person applying as the spouse of an EU citizen can simply submit an EU ID card, a marriage certificate and evidence that the EU citizen is exercising free movement rights in order to qualify for a document. This means that the EU route has become the route of choice for those seeking to frustrate UK immigration control.


There is significant evidence to suggest that the phenomenon of sham marriage is linked with serious organised criminal activity. Three high-profile cases of organised sham marriage conspiracies are set out at Appendix A of this document. It should be noted that evidence of new sham marriage 'rings' comes to the attention of the UK authorities on an ongoing basis, requiring investigation and often enforcement action. In the North West region of the UK alone, there are currently 15 ongoing operations investigating sham marriage rings and a further 8 such operations in development. These operations place considerable demand on the resources of the UK authorities.


While in many cases the EU citizen who enters into a marriage of convenience may take part willingly for financial gain, the UK authorities are aware of a significant number of cases where the EU citizen is a victim of exploitation. This can be because the EU citizen is targeted as particularly vulnerable due to their personal or financial circumstances, or in some cases is a victim of a deliberate scam designed to place them in such a position.


In the case of the conspiracy led by Reverend Alex Brown (see Appendix A for details of this case), many of the cases involved women from Eastern EU countries who had responded to advertisements placed in their home countries for work in the UK town of Hastings. These adverts were in fact placed by Reverend Brown's co-conspirator Vladimir Buchak, who lured the women to the UK and arranged low-paid employment and accommodation which placed them in unsatisfactory financial situations, often creating a 'debt' to Buchak for his assistance. Buchak would then exploit the circumstances he had manufactured by coercing the women to take part in sham marriages for money.


Some cases involve more serious exploitation of EU citizens, as a recent case in the UK highlighted. The case involved a Slovakian woman of Roma descent who was kidnapped while on a night out in Hungary and trafficked to the UK for the purpose of being forced into a sham marriage. The marriage was contracted in order that the 'husband', Pakistani national Azam Khan, could undermine his impending deportation from the UK. Khan was convicted in October 2013 on charges of arranging to bring a person to the UK for exploitation, false imprisonment, rape and common assault. Four other people were convicted of various offences committed against the woman, including sexual assault, false imprisonment and human trafficking (see Appendix B for the Lancashire Police press release relating to this case).


The UK authorities are currently undertaking interviews for persons applying for residence cards on the basis of marriage to an EU citizen where reasonable grounds exist to suspect the marriage is one of convenience. Two case studies from these interviews are set out at Appendix C of this document. These case studies have been anonymised in order to protect the EU citizens involved, and due to the ongoing investigation into these cases. Case study 1 of this Appendix highlights the case of a vulnerable EU national who was targeted by facilitators and who was left distressed by her experience.


It is clear that many EU citizens involved in sham marriage are victims of coercion or deception by the criminal gangs who facilitate these conspiracies. It is therefore imperative that this issue is correctly framed not just as a matter of the facilitation of immigration crime, but of the exploitation of vulnerable EU citizens for the financial gain of criminal gangs.


3. Proxy Marriage


Some countries provide for marriage ceremonies to be conducted 'by proxy', meaning that one, or in some cases both, of the parties to the marriage ('double proxy') can nominate a person to represent them at the ceremony. The specific arrangements and requirements for proxy marriage ceremonies vary according to the territory in which the marriage is contracted.


The UK authorities consider that it would be reasonable to expect that circumstances requiring a couple to be married in this way would be relatively rare, particularly in cases of a double proxy ceremony. Examples of such circumstances could be where one party is on military service, is incarcerated or is unable to travel due to serious health issues.


Where the two parties are residing in the UK, there are unlikely to be any circumstances under which it would be necessary to contract a proxy marriage. Provided that the two parties are free to marry under the terms of the UK Marriage Act (a requirement which would also apply when considering whether a marriage contracted elsewhere is valid under UK law), there would be no impediment to contracting a genuine marriage between an EU citizen and a third country national, irrespective of those persons' immigration status.


The UK authorities therefore consider it is reasonable to suggest that the primary motivation behind a decision for such parties to contract a marriage in these circumstances is either to avoid the scrutiny of UK registrars, who may raise concerns with the UK authorities where there are reasons to suspect that a marriage is one of convenience, or that the EU national is in fact not in the UK as claimed and therefore it is not possible to contract a marriage in the UK.

The UK authorities consider that they encounter a disproportionately high number of proxy marriage certificates in applications for residence cards as evidence of relationship to an EU national compared to what could reasonably be expected. A sample of 200 European casework decisions by one casework team in the week commencing 7th October 2013 showed a total of 12 proxy marriage certificates submitted in support of residence card applications. This is in comparison to 64 non-proxy marriage certificates received for such applications in the same period. (See Appendix D for breakdown of sampling exercise). In the sample selected, proxy marriage certificates represented 16% of all marriage certificates submitted in residence card applications.


Due to the concerns raised over the practice of submitting proxy marriage certificates as evidence of relationship, the UK authorities have dedicated considerable resources to assessing the genuineness of these certificates. This has included working with the authorities in the relevant countries to establish the criteria for contracting such marriages and for guidance on assessing the veracity of the documents submitted. As a result, the UK authorities have identified a number of such documents as fraudulent; either as a counterfeit document, or as a genuine document which has been obtained fraudulently.


A recent investigation into a series of applications submitted by the same firm of legal representatives uncovered a pattern of abusive applications. Nationals from one non-EU country (country A) submitted applications as spouses of nationals of one EU country (country B). The applications included a proxy marriage certificate showing that a marriage between the two parties was contracted in country A, an EU ID card from country B and evidence of employment for the EU national. The EU ID cards were found in all cases to be either counterfeit documents of genuine EU ID cards, or genuine ID cards which had been reported lost or stolen. The evidence of employment was also found to be fraudulent. (See section 5 below for further details on these cases.)


Such cases highlight the ease with which an EU citizen may become a victim of identity fraud and unwittingly 'sponsor' a non-EU national to reside in the UK without their knowledge, as a proxy marriage does not require the presence of the EU national (or indeed the non-EU national) at the ceremony.


4. Benefit Fraud, crime and trafficking.


The document included at Appendix E is a freedom of information request response from the Metropolitan Police listing all press releases from that force in relation to 'Operation Golf', a joint operation between UK and Romanian police which was partly funded by the European Commission.


Operation Golf was established in September 2008 following the discovery that over 1,000 children had been trafficked by a Romanian gang from the town of Tanderai for the purpose of exploitation through forced criminality, including theft, organised begging and benefit fraud.


The cases listed in the freedom of information response include the following:


—  A gang involved in a £2.9million benefit fraud scam in which false claims for UK benefits were facilitated by a Romanian gang.

—  Cases involving child trafficking for the purposes of benefit fraud and child exploitation, including children being forced to beg.

The phenomenon of child trafficking for the purpose of exploiting benefits systems in EU member states is highlighted in the Europol Knowledge Product "Trafficking in Human Beings in the European Union", which states "Current reporting indicates that social security, welfare and benefits systems are being targeted by traffickers using trafficked children to support and justify claims linked to family and housing benefits. This is in addition to the commission of street crime offences and the involvement of trafficked children in the production, manufacture and supply of controlled drugs".[6] A link to this report is included at Appendix F of this document.


The October 2010 report on the trafficking of children into and within the UK for benefit fraud purposed by the Child Exploitation and Online Protection (CEOP) Centre refers to Romanian Roma children being exploited in this way. In its conclusion, the report highlights that while there is a common perception of benefit fraud as an economic crime with the only victim being the state, fraudulent claims of this nature involved children being trafficked, neglected and treated as a commodity to be used for financial gain. The report also highlighted that children who underwent this type of exploitation were reported as appearing traumatised, and that there was some evidence to suggest that the children were mistreated and neglected.[7] A link to this report can be found at Appendix G of this document.

The report by the Council of the Baltic Sea States (CBSS) entitled "Children trafficked for exploitation in begging and criminality" (enclosed at Appendix H of this document) refers to similar patterns reported in the Baltic EU Member States, and demonstrates that the phenomenon of vulnerable children being trafficked across the EU to be exploited in this way is by no means limited to the UK.

In addition to the work undertaken in Operation Golf, there have been a number of other high-profile cases of human trafficking for the purposes of exploiting the UK benefits system. On 2 November 2013, 29 people were arrested in Poland and two people arrested in London following a joint operation by the Metropolitan Police, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs and Polish police. (See Appendix I for press release on this case).


Enquiries found that the Poland-based gang had lured at least 230 Polish victims, many of whom had mental health or substance abuse problems, to come to the UK by promising them work. Instead, the victims were tricked into opening bank accounts, into which fraudulently-claimed benefits would be paid. The money would subsequently be emptied from the accounts by the gang, leaving the victims destitute. This case is currently ongoing in the UK courts.


It is clear that criminal gangs exploit the free movement rights of EU citizens in order to facilitate significant fraud against the UK benefits system. Far from being simply a financial crime, this type of abuse has serious consequences for the EU citizens who fall victim of these gangs.



5. Fraudulent documents

Of the fraudulent identity and travel documents encountered by the UK authorities at borders and ports, a consistently large majority are fraudulent EU (and EEA) documentation. The table below shows the proportion of detected document fraud at UK borders and ports. The documents referred to are documents presented as evidence of EU/EEA identity which are either forged, counterfeit or presented by an 'impostor'.
Total Number of fraudulent documents detected
Total number of EU/EEA fraudulent documents detected


A non-EU national presenting a fraudulent document relies on free movement rights to which they are not entitled. In addition to the documents detected at UK borders and ports, the UK authorities also encounter fraudulent EU/EEA documents in applications for documentation confirming a right of residence for persons residing in the UK.

Two such patterns of abuse were identified by European casework teams and were subject to a 'pilot' study. Caseworkers identified that a number of similar applications were received where the EU document was either counterfeit, or a genuine document which had been reported lost or stolen.

In the first pattern identified, 21 individual applications were received from nationals of one of two non-EEA countries with the following features;


·  The applicants had been issued leave to remain in the UK under the Immigration Rules as non-EU students, and their leave had either expired, had been revoked, or was due to expire in the near future.

·  The applicants submitted applications for registration certificates in the same identity, presenting themselves as EU nationals exercising free movement rights.

·  The majority of the documents submitted were counterfeit passports from one particular Member State. The UK is aware that further counterfeit passports of the same poor quality have been detected within that Member State.

Almost all of the applicants were from the same non-EU country.

In a separate pattern of abuse identified, the casework teams encountered 17 applications submitted by a single firm of solicitors with similar features as follows:

·  The applicants applied for residence cards as the family member of EU nationals

·  The applicants were from the same non-EU country in all 11 applications, and the claimed EU national family members were all nationals of the same Member State.

·  the EU ID card or passport submitted was either counterfeit or a genuine document which had been reported lost or stolen

·  in almost all cases, the marriage certificate submitted stated that a proxy marriage had been conducted in the non-EU country of which the applicant was a national.

·  The evidence submitted to demonstrate that the EU national was exercising free movement rights was found to be fraudulent (variously including forged bank statements or wage slips, the claimed employed have no record of the applicant, or no evidence that the claimed employer actually exists.)

·  All applicants were in the UK without a legal basis for their stay; some had entered on visit visas and overstayed, one was a failed asylum seeker and several had submitted new passports issued in London with no evidence of how or when they had entered the UK.

One of the applicants in this group of cases had made two previous unsuccessful applications for a residence card, with each of the three applications being based on a relationship with a different EU citizen.

It is clear that some persons who are not entitled to a right of residence under EU law seek to abuse the principle of free movement through the abuse of EU identity documents, either by claiming to be the family member of an EU national who has in fact had their ID documents stolen or counterfeited, or by presenting themselves as EU nationals through such practices.

Appendix A — Sham Marriage Facilitation Convictions

Reverend Alex Brown, Church of St. Peter and St. Paul, St, Leonards, East Sussex — September 2010

Reverend Alex Brown, solicitor Michael Adelasoye and Vladimir Buchak were convicted of facilitation of commission of breaches of immigration law and were each sentenced to 4 years imprisonment.

The case against the men involved 360 'sham' marriages, the majority involving female EU citizens and non-EU national males who had exhausted their right of appeal under the UK Immigration Rules. The EU citizens received up to £3,000 to take part in the sham marriages. The non-EU national males would then seek to rely on their sham marriage for a right of residence in the UK under EU law.

Many of the EU citizens involved were women from Eastern European countries who had responded to an advertisement encouraging them to come to the town of Hastings to work. They were then befriended by Buchak (a Ukrainian national posing as an Estonian national) ho arranged employment and places in shared accommodation for the EU citizens. Buchak would then pressure the EU citizens to take part in sham marriages, playing on their financial vulnerability.

The Home Office news story on this can be found at the following link:

Reverend Brian Shipsides, All Saints Church, Forest Gate, London — April 2012

Reverend Brian Shipsides and Amudalat Lapido were convicted for conspiring to arrange sham marriages for the purposes of circumventing United Kingdom Immigration Law and sentences to four and a half years and three years imprisonment respectively.

The case against the pair involved the arrangement of 193 sham marriages between May 2009 and July 2010, sometimes conducting as many as seven such marriages in a single day. In his sentencing remarks, the presiding Judge stated that Rev. Shipside controlled every aspect of the parochial arrangements for the weddings, from visit letters, identification documents, the reading of the banns and the register of marriages.

The Judge stated that Amudalat Lapido was labelled by the prosecution as a 'marriage fixer' who was involved in planning the weddings, gathering the necessary documentation (some of it bogus), and booking flights for EEA nationals to attend the weddings.

The sham marriages were arranged between EEA nationals and non-EEA nationals, the majority of whom went on to submit applications for residence documentation from the UK authorities shortly afterwards. The EEA nationals were often flown in for the ceremony, returning home afterwards.

Reverend Shipside was subsequently ordered to pay £10,792 under the Proceeds of Crime Act.

The BBC News report on this case can be found here:

Maria Loureiro and Ilyas Neki — March 2013

On 6th March 2013, 11 members of a sham marriage ring were jailed for a total of more than 18 years at Manchester Crown Court. Maria Loureiro was found to be one of the main organisers of the conspiracy and was sentenced to 45 months imprisonment. Evidence put before the court suggested that Ms. Loureira profited by as much as £27,000, with the Judge accepting that the real figure could in fact be much higher.

Ms Loureiro was found to have been responsible for introducing Portuguese woman to the Indian men involved in the conspiracy. She was paid to arrange the weddings, attended at airports and immigration appeal hearings, attend notice of intention to marry interviews and the wedding ceremonies themselves, on occasion employing a disguise or a false identity.

Ilyas Neki was convicted alongside Maria Loureiro. Mr Neki acted as a facilitator between the Indian men and Ms Loureiro. Mr Neki was sentenced to 32 months imprisonment.

The Judge found that the cases involved EEA national women being flown from Portugal to the UK on flights paid for by Ms Loureiro. Once in the UK, the women would obtain a national insurance number, have some involvement in making arrangements for the wedding at the register office and then return to Portugal. The women would then return to the UK for the wedding. The 9 Indian 'grooms' sentenced in this case were either nearing the end of their leave to remain under the Immigration Rules, had overstayed their leave or had applied unsuccessfully to extend their leave.

Each pair of brides and grooms were provided with a crib sheet giving basic personal information, and documents such as utility bills in their joint names and sometimes debit cards in the name of the bride. All of this information was intended as evidence of a relationship between the brides and grooms which in reality did not exist. In all but one case, the brides and grooms did not live together, nor was there any kind of wedding reception following the ceremony.

The UK Border Agency news report on this case can be found here:

Appendix B

Lancashire Police Press Release dated 09/10/2013

Five guilty of trafficking Slovakian woman to Bradford and Burnley

FOUR men and one woman have today been found guilty of people trafficking for exploitation following an eight week trial at Preston Crown Court.

Imrich Bodor, 45, and Petra Dzudzova, 25, both of Clipstone Street, Bradford, Abdul Sabool Shinwary, 38 of Washington Street, Bradford and have all been found guilty of people trafficking for exploitation under section 4 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 2004.

Nusrat Khan, 40, of Colne Road, Burnley has been found guilty of false imprisonment.

Azam Khan, 33, of Brougham Street, Burnley has been found guilty of people trafficking, three offences of rape, assault and false imprisonment.

Kristina Makunova, 37 of Girlington Road, Bradford pleaded guilty to people trafficking for exploitation during the first week of the trial.

All will be sentenced by HHJ Gibson tomorrow, 10th October.

On Saturday, 20th October 2012, police received an anonymous call to report that a 20 year old Slovakian woman was being held against her will at a property in the Daneshouse area of Burnley.

The woman was rescued by officers from an address on Colne Road, the home address of Nusrat Khan, and disclosed that she had been kidnapped in Slovakia and brought into the UK where she was subsequently exploited.

"This is a case of modern day slavery. The victim in this case has been trafficked into and within the UK, sold, subjected to assaults, rape and further sold for marriage."

DI Neil Howarth

A police investigation revealed that she had been brought into the UK by Imrich Bodor and kept in the Bradford area by him and Petra Dzudzova before being sold to Abdul Shinwary. Shinwary then sold the victim to Azam Khan, who is the nephew of Nusrat Khan.

She was then married to Azam Khan in a Nikah ceremony at a Burnley Mosque on 13th  October 2012 at a time when he was due to be deported to Pakistan, after being refused leave to remain in the UK.

Azam Khan was arrested in October 2012 for offences relating to the trafficking of his victim, alongside his relatives, Mashrafat and Nusrat Khan. Azam Khan was subsequently charged with rape, assault and false imprisonment and remanded into custody.

Following a number of search warrants executed in Bradford in December 2012, Imrich Bodor, 45, Petra Dzudzova, 25, Abdul Sabool Shinwary, 38 and Kristina Makunova, 37, were arrested, subsequently charged and remanded with human trafficking offences.

Nusrat Khan, 40, and Mashrafat Khan, 61 were re interviewed on 29th January 2013 and subsequently charged with trafficking for exploitation contrary to section 4 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 2004. The case against Mashrafat Khan was subsequently dismissed at court on 16th September and Nusrat Khan has been convicted of false imprisonment.

The victim returned home to Slovakia in January 2013 with the assistance of the Slovakian authorities and Caritas, Slovakian catholic charity. However, officers travelled to Slovakia and escorted her back to the UK, in order to give evidence.

Detective Inspector Neil Howarth said: "This is a case of modern day slavery. The victim in this case has been trafficked into and within the UK, sold, subjected to assaults, rape and further sold for marriage.

 "During police interviews it became apparent that she had been brought to the UK against her will on a coach in August 2012. She had been prostituted against her will, physically assaulted, prevented from leaving the company of persons associated to her, had her travel documents taken from her, sold into marriage and raped.

"Someone within the community raised the alarm to alert the police to this woman's ordeal and I would like to thank them for that. However, others within the community at Bradford and Burnley have turned a blind eye.

"Throughout her ordeal all she wanted to do was go home. The victim had no intention of benefitting from the opportunities presented in the UK and returned home as soon as possible.

"She is an extremely vulnerable young woman, and I am proud at the bravery she has shown in attending court and giving evidence to obtain justice."

Following today's verdict, the victim said: "I am very happy that these bad people are going to prison. This is what I always wanted after what they did to me. Thank you to the person who rang the police.

"I was so scared for my life. Many times I wanted to run away from them but because of what the bad people told me, I didn't know where to run, where to go, or who I could trust.

"All I wanted to do was go home to my family in Slovakia. If the police hadn't come to get me, I don't think I would be here today.

"Thank you to the police and all the other good people who looked after me and got me back to my family.

"Thank you for believing me."


THREE men and a woman have today been jailed for a total of over 30 years after being convicted of people trafficking for exploitation following a ten week trial at Preston Crown Court.

Azam Khan, 33, of Brougham Street, Burnley has been jailed for 12 years after being found guilty of people trafficking, three offences of rape, assault and false imprisonment.

Abdul Sabool Shinwary, 38 of Washington Street, Bradford has been sentenced to 10  year and 3 months after being convicted of people trafficking for exploitation under section 4 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 2004.

Imrich Bodor, 45, of Clipstone Street, Bradford has been jailed for nine years after being found guilty of people trafficking for exploitation under section 4 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 2004.

Kristina Makunova, 37 of Girlington Road, Bradford pleaded guilty to people trafficking for exploitation during the first week of the trial and was yesterday given a 51 week custodial sentence.

A fifth person, Nusrat Khan, 40, of Colne Road, Burnley was handed a nine month suspended sentence after being found guilty of false imprisonment.

Petra Dzudzova, 25, of Clipstone Street, Bradford will be sentenced tomorrow after being convicted of people trafficking for exploitation.

Link to Lancashire Police press release:

Appendix C

The following case studies are from recent applications for residence documentation where the non-EU national and their EU citizen sponsor have been invited to interview by the UK authorities due to concerns that the marriage was not genuine. Names and nationalities have been excluded in order to protect the identities of the persons involved.

Case Study 1

The EU citizen sponsor admitted at interview that she had entered into a sham marriage with the non-EU national. She advised that she had been recruited by a woman in her home member state. At the time, she was a single mother to two young children, had recently lost her job and been unable to find other work. She approached this woman for financial assistance, and was persuaded to come to the UK to take part in a sham marriage. She was told that she would be paid €800 for her involvement. There were also two men based in the UK involved in facilitating this marriage. The EU citizen explained that the facilitator in her home member state would fly up to 10 women to the UK per week to take part in sham marriages.

The EU citizen was flown to the UK to take part in the marriage and then returned home. The non-EU national submitted an application for a residence card, submitting documents showing that the EU citizen was working in the UK, that they shared a bank account and that they lived together at the same address. The facilitators even set up a fake company in order to provide evidence that the EU citizen was self-employed in the UK. Both parties were invited to attend a marriage interview by the UK authorities due to concerns that the marriage was not genuine. After having difficulty in replicating her claimed spouse's answers during the marriage interview, the EU citizen admitted that she did not know the person claiming to be her spouse, she had never resided or worked in the UK and that the supporting documents submitted (evidence of employment, bank statements, evidence of cohabitation) were counterfeit. She and her alleged spouse had been given 'crib sheets' to prepare them for the interview.

The EU citizen became very distressed during the interview. She advised that she had not received the money she had been promised for her part in the sham, and was extremely worried about 'getting in trouble' for her involvement.

Case Study 2

A Brazilian national ('A') entered the UK on a visit visa with her husband ('B') and son ('C') (also Brazilian nationals) in March 2003. In July 2003, 'A' applied for a leave to remain as a student, as she had enrolled on an English language course in the UK. 'A' was granted leave to remain until May 2004. 'B' and 'C' were granted leave to remain as her dependents. In May 2004, 'A' made an application to extend her leave to remain, with 'B' and 'C' seeking further leave to remain as her dependents. This application was refused in June 2004 on the basis that the college at which she had enrolled had been revealed as not being a bona fide establishment. 'A' appealed the decision, but the appeal was dismissed in July 2005.

'A' and her dependents remained in the UK without leave to remain until February 2006, when the family returned voluntarily to Brazil.

An application for an EEA residence card from 'B' was received on 21 October 2006. 'B' claimed that he had divorced 'A' on their return to Brazil, had married a Portuguese national in Portugal and then re- entered the UK as the spouse of an EEA national in September 2006. Two days later, on 23 October 2006, 'A' and 'C' also submitted applications for EEA residence cards, on the basis that 'A' had married a Portuguese national in Brazil and that she and 'C' were residing with the Portuguese national in the UK. Residence cards were issued to all three applicants on the basis that they had submitted evidence of identity, relationship and exercise of free movement rights for the respective EEA nationals.

In April 2012, 'B' submitted an application for a document certifying a right of permanent residence. This application was refused on the basis that the marriage appeared to be one of convenience. 'B' had provided no valid evidence that the Portuguese national was in the UK, and the evidence of employment submitted was found to be false. The residence card issued to 'B' in 2006 was revoked at time of this decision. At the same time, 'A' submitted an application her and 'C' for leave to remain on the basis of Article 8 of the ECHR, on the basis of C's residence in the UK. This application was refused.

'A' then submitted applications for an EEA Residence Card on 26 July and 18 August 2013 on the basis of being the direct family member of an EEA national, before submitting an application 30 Oct 2013 on the basis that her son had a right of residence due to having commenced education in the UK.

A pastoral visit was made by Immigration Officers to the home of 'A' and 'C'. 'C' advised the Immigration Officers that he lived at the address with his parents, 'A' and 'B'. Under interview, 'A' conceded that 'B' had resided with her at her address for '2-3 years'.

The UK authorities consider that it is clear that 'A' and 'B', having exhausted avenues for leave to remain under the Immigration Rules in 2006, conspired to re-enter the UK as a family unit by entering into two marriages of convenience and fraudulently claiming a right of residence as the spouses of EEA nationals. The family have in fact had no legitimate basis to remain in the UK since July 2005.

Appendix D

Sampling exercise conducted on decisions made by a Home Office casework team during week commencing 7th October 2013.

200 of the applications dealt with by this team were randomly sampled to assess the application type, reason for application, and where applicable what kind of marriage certificate had been submitted.[8]
Total Number in Sample

Breakdown of Spouse Residence Card Applications in Sample:
No. of Applications
Proxy Marriages (No.)
Proxy Marriages (%)
Residence Cards
Permanent Residence Cards

Appendix E

Metropolitan Police Service Freedom of Information Request Response listing press releases on the work of Operation Golf

Link to source:

Appendix F

Europol Knowledge Product: Trafficking in Human Beings in the European Union (September 2011)

Appendix G

Child Exploitation and Online Protection (CEOP) Report: The trafficking of children into and within the UK for benefit fraud purposes (October 2010)


Appendix H

Council of the Baltic Sea States (CBSS) report - Children trafficked for exploitation in begging and criminality: A challenge for law enforcement and child protection (February 2013)


Appendix I

Alleged members of a gang who trafficked people into the UK to claim benefits are bailed

03 November 2011

A Polish gang who trafficked more than 200 people to the UK as part of a multi-million pound benefit fraud has been smashed following a joint investigation by the Metropolitan Police, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC) and the Polish police.

The two-year operation, initiated by the Posen Appeals Prosecution Office (in Poland), culminated on 2 November in 29 people being arrested in Poland and five addresses searched in London, resulting in two arrests (a man and woman aged their 40s). Searches were also carried out in Birmingham.

The two arrested in London — both Polish nationals — are now bailed to return to a south London police station on 12 December pending further inquiries.

Inquiries found the gang, based in Poland, promised at least 230 victims - many of whom had alcohol or mental health problems - work in the UK.

They then brought the victims to stay in various addresses in this country and tricked them into signing papers to open bank accounts.

The criminals then fraudulently applied for Tax Credit and other benefits using the victim's details and got the money paid into the newly created accounts.

The money was emptied from the accounts by gang members and sent back to the ringleaders in Poland while the trafficked victims were left destitute.

It is believed the scam has cost the UK more than £2million.

Uniformed Polish police officers joined officers from the Human Exploitation and Organised Crime Command (SCD9), Territorial Support Group (TSG) and local officers to search addresses in south and east London for further evidence.

The search warrants coincided with police back in Poland arresting suspected members of the gang as they gathered for a wedding.

Detective Inspector Kevin Hyland, from SCD9, said: "These vulnerable victims were trafficked here to be exploited and satisfy the greed of these criminals. They were brought here under the impression they were getting a job but were left with nothing, with many ending up on the street.

"The complex international dimension to this inquiry meant that it was vital to have a close relationship with the Polish authorities, which is why they joined us on this operation this week.

"These arrests are the first step in these victims getting justice in their home country and have prevented more money being stolen from the public purse."

Assistant Director John Pointing, from HMRC Criminal Investigation London, said: "During this operation, HMRC investigated over 230 Tax Credit awards with a value in excess of £2,000,000. We suspect the claims have been submitted by a criminal gang trafficking people who have then acquired their victims' identities to commit fraud in the UK.

"The evidence HMRC gathered has played a vital role in the strategic planning of this international investigation and has directly supported the arrest of suspects in Poland and the UK.

"Tax Credits are designed to help lower income families and individuals. HMRC treats criminal attacks on all its systems very seriously and works constantly with our law enforcement partners, here and abroad, to detect, investigate and prosecute offenders."

Police Major Monika Sokolowska from the Central Unit for Trafficking in Human Beings, in Poland, said "This form of trafficking is a new phenomenon in Poland at this present moment. In the past we were used to dealing with cases where people were trafficked for prostitution or for slavery but this new form of trafficking is becoming ever more prevalent.

"This is a big case for us with over 200 statements taken from vulnerable witness who were exploited. These people were trafficked to the UK by criminals and did not receive any of the social benefits that were fraudulently claimed in their name. This has been an ongoing case working with officers from the MPS and other partner agencies, and much has been achieved today because of the partnership work involved."

Most of the victims are now back in Poland and have been supported by the Polish authorities.

Link to source:

Free Movement Rights — Initial Information for the European Commission (UK)

(Provided to the Commission on 3 December 2013)


Subsequent to the Ministerial discussions at the June 2013 Justice and Home Affairs Council, the European Commission (Directorate General Justice) has requested that Member States submit data and statistics to the Commission, so that DG Justice, in conjunction with the members of the expert group on free movement, can examine the problem and report back to the Council in December.

We are in the process of collating further more detailed information which will be provided to the Commission in due course and in advance of the submission of their report to the December Justice and Home Affairs Council.

DG Justice has specifically requested detailed information on:

i.  Total number and percentage of mobile EU citizens who are economically active (or inactive) in comparison to nationals who are active (or inactive)

ii.  Total number and percentage of mobile EU citizens who asked for/ received social benefits in comparison to nationals (and non-EU nationals) in a given period

iii.  Details on types of abuse and fraud of free movement rights

iv.  Number and percentage of mobile EU citizens who were found to abuse free movement rights, in comparison to the total number of EU mobile citizens in a given country and given period and in comparison to nationals and non-EU nationals when applicable.

v.  Use of cohesion funds to address social inclusion, and your national priorities.

We consider that these questions (i-iv) place too much emphasis on quantitative evidence. Qualitative evidence is equally important in demonstrating the abuse of free movement rights. For the reasons set out below, quantitative data is not always available:

·  The United Kingdom does not currently impose a mandatory registration requirement upon Union citizens who enter the UK and exercise free movement rights.

·  Data on the nationality of claimants for social welfare benefits is not routinely published as the source systems used to capture and process income related social welfare benefits claims typically do not include a nationality marker.

1.2 Caveats

As well as the limitations set out above, further caveats are indicated throughout the document.

2. Total number, and living situations of Union citizens in the United Kingdom

This section is split into three subsections which cover: the total number of Union citizens living in the UK, the annual flows of Union citizens entering the UK, and where available, a break down of Union citizen activity.

2.1 Total number of mobile Union citizens living in the UK

The Office of National Statistics estimates that in 2012 over two million mobile Union citizens were living in the UK.[10]

Table 1: Estimate of the resident population of the UK by nationality, 2012 (Figures in thousands)[11]

The number of EU nationals residing in the UK has increased every year since 2004. In 2012 there were over one million more EU nationals residing in the UK than had been in 2004.

The total number of non-British nationals has increased from 4,460,000 in 2010 to 4,852,000 in 2012, of which mobile EU nationals constituted 2,003,000 in 2010, rising to 2,343,000 in 2012.[12]

Table 2: Estimate of the resident population of the UK (by non-British nationality) 2004 to 2012

Some Union nationalities are significantly represented in the UK. For example, in 2012 over 700,000 Polish nationals were resident in the UK — making them the most common non-British nationality.

The significant increases in Union citizens living in the UK over the years 2004-2012 have been focused in certain parts of Great Britain. The vast majority of Union citizens reside in England (as compared to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland).

2.2 Annual Net Movement of mobile Union citizens

In the year ending December 2012 an estimated 155,000 mobile EU citizens migrated to the UK. Taking into account the emigration of mobile EU citizens, the net migration of Union citizens to the UK in the year ending December 2012 was 82,000, the same as the previous year.[13]

2.3 Activity of mobile Union Citizens

As the United Kingdom does not have a mandatory registration requirement for Union citizens, there is no available breakdown of the activity or status of all EU nationals who are residing in the UK. The Office of National Statistics publishes estimates of the number of people in employment in the UK by nationality. These are the latest figures, the historical estimates are available at this link:

Table 3: Estimate of employment level by nationality in the United Kingdom (thousands of people aged 16 and over) not seasonally adjusted.[14]
Total EU 26
Apr-Jun 2011
Apr-Jun 2012
Jul-Sep 2012
Oct-Dec 2012
Jan-Mar 2013
Apr-Jun 2013
Change on year (April-June 2012 to April-June 2013)
Change %

The Office of National Statistics also publishes the number of National Insurance Numbers (NINo) issued to adult overseas nationals entering the UK. A NINo is generally required by any overseas national looking to work or to claim benefits or tax credits in the UK, including the self-employed or students working part-time. These statistics provide a measure of inflow for adult overseas nationals (not a measure of activity per se).

Table 4: NINo registrations to adult EU nationals entering the UK, by year of registration, 2009/10 to 2012/13[16]
EU Accession[18]
EU 26 total (excl. Croatia)

During 2012/13, 209,180 NINos were registered to nationals of those Member States who acceded to the EU in 2004 (for whom labour market restrictions were lifted across the EU as a whole in May 2011) plus the more recent accession countries (Romania and Bulgaria) - an increase of nearly 3,000 (1%) on 2011/12. Registrations to other EU nationals (176,060 in 2012/13) increased by 22%.

3. Mobile EU citizens and social welfare

Data on the nationality of claimants for social welfare benefits is not routinely published as the source systems used to capture and process income related social welfare benefits claims typically do not include a nationality marker.

Consequently it is not possible to provide regular reporting on the nationality of applicants for social welfare benefits. However, we are exploring whether we can provide ad-hoc information on the number of mobile EU citizens in receipt of social welfare benefits in the UK.

In some cases criminality by EU nationals who come to the UK is directed at the social welfare system - through deliberately fraudulent claims for social welfare. In a recent example an EU national assisted other EU nationals to submit fraudulent benefit claims. This case is estimated to have resulted in the fraudulent claims of £2.9 million worth of benefits.

4. Abuse and fraud of free movement rights

The abuse of free movement rights can take several different forms and the modus operandi may vary from one Member State to another. However, abuse by non-EU nationals has one primary goal, namely to circumvent domestic immigration rules and obtain the right to enter and reside in the European Union with access to all the associated benefits which flow from free movement, such as the right to work and social welfare benefits.

It is our experience that abuse of free movement rights is not limited to non-EU nationals who are seeking to circumvent domestic immigration rules. Union citizens can also abuse free movement rights, for example by going to another Member State in reliance on free movement but with no intention of genuinely or effectively exercising Treaty rights.

The following types of abusive behaviour may be encountered (not an exhaustive list):

i.  Marriages of Convenience

ii.  False or fraudulent use of European Union documentation

iii.  False claims of dependency, paternity or family relationship

iv.  False information provision, such as fictitious employment

v.  Union citizens who benefit from free movement primarily to engage in criminality in the UK

vi.  Union citizens who come to the UK with no intention of genuinely and effectively exercising Treaty rights

In the following section we have provided information, where available on the most common types of abuse encountered in the UK. We will provide more operational information in advance of the December Council.

4.1 Marriages of Convenience

Marriages of convenience present an increasing threat to the UK, not only in terms of volume, but also due to the involvement of organised criminal groups and the links to wider criminality.

The total number of marriages of convenience which take place every year is very complex to establish, and there are also no national statistics on the involvement of organised criminal groups in facilitating marriages of convenience. However there is significant qualitative evidence to indicate the severity of the threat. Indicative examples, to illustrate the scale of the problem, have been provided below.

In the UK, registrars who conduct civil marriage ceremonies have a duty to notify the Home Office if they have reasonable grounds to believe that a marriage is one of convenience. These reports (known as section 24 reports) are one indicator of the number of suspected sham marriages taking place in the UK. The number of section 24 reports received by the Home Office has increased every year since 2008.

Table 5: Section 24 reports received from registrars annually

Section 24 reports do not cover all of the marriages which take place in the UK. The number of section 24 reports should only be considered as a proportion of the total number of suspected sham marriages which take place in the UK every year. For example, there is no reporting duty for religious ceremonies which take place in Church of England establishments, though there is evidence that marriages of convenience take place in such religious establishments.

A London vicar who carried out nearly 250 sham marriages between non-EU and EU nationals, to enable the non-EU nationals to stay in the UK, was jailed for over four years. The vicar earned over £30,000 from the fees he charged for conducting a marriage of convenience.

A vicar at the Church of St Peter and St Paul in the south of England was jailed for conducting 383 marriages of convenience between EU nationals and African (mainly Nigerian) men to enable the non-EU nationals to stay in the UK. The EU nationals were paid up to £3000 to participate. An immigration solicitor and 'recruiter' were also jailed.

A vicar in the North of England was jailed for carrying out 28 marriages of convenience, some of which involved the same 'bride' taking part in multiple ceremonies to different men.


As there is no requirement for non-EU family members to register with municipal, regional or central authorities in the UK, it can be difficult to detect a marriage of convenience after the wedding ceremony. The involvement of organised crime groups can make such marriages harder to detect as these groups have significant experience and skills.

With marriages of convenience which take place in the UK, non-EU nationals generally have no 'leave' to be in the UK, for example their visa has expired, or they entered the UK illegally and are seeking to regularise their stay. Others may be here legally but have no means to extend their stay in the UK, for example students whose visa is about to expire at the end of their course. The aim, in such cases is to circumvent domestic immigration rules and exploit free movement rules in order to gain a right of residence in the UK.

Marriages of convenience can also take place in other countries, before the couple come to the UK in order to gain a right of entry for the non-EU national. A limited study in 2011 looked at abusive applications for EEA Family Permits (a form of overseas entry clearance for non-EU family members of EU nationals). The study found 256 cases, approximately 2% of the total applications for Family Permits in the period which represents a significant proportion. In 176 of these 256 cases Entry Clearance Officers had significant concerns about the authenticity of the marriage. Many of the remaining cases involved serious criminality or forged documentation.

During an interview for an EEA Family Permit, the Albanian applicant, who had previously attempted to enter the UK illegally, was unable to state where in France his wife came from, the company his wife worked for, or the name of his sister-in-law with whom his wife lives.

An Iraqi national, who had previously unsuccessfully claimed asylum in the UK, applied for an EEA Family Permit to join his spouse in the UK. The applicant claimed to have met his wife in 2006 but during an interview he was unable to state his wife's date of birth, he also could not explain what his wife did in the UK. He also claimed that he and his wife, a Lithuanian citizen, communicated with each other in English; however the applicant was unable to communicate in English during the interview.

Many individuals arrange their own marriages of convenience, primarily through the internet where offers of participation are readily available, or through friends and family.

A 19 year old university student was sentenced for taking part in a marriage of convenience to a fellow student whose visa was about to expire. The student received £4,000 in exchange for participating in the ceremony.

Organised crime groups also play a significant role in facilitating marriages of convenience. Whilst there are no statistics currently available on the number of marriages of convenience which are facilitated by organised criminal groups, we consider this is likely to be an increasing threat. As Member States' continually improve their ability to detect and prevent marriages of convenience, more skilled facilitation is required. As Europol has confirmed illegal immigrants are increasingly seeking the services of organised criminal groups in an attempt to overcome enhanced detection measures.[19]

In August 2013, six people were arrested in the North West of England for arranging and participating in marriages of convenience between Hungarian and Pakistani nationals. Two illegal immigrants who had overstayed their visas were also arrested at the premises.

In March 2013 11 members of organised criminal group were jailed for more than 18 years for arranging marriages of convenience between Portuguese and Indian nationals. A Portuguese national who acted as a translator and witness at marriages of convenience received a 45 month sentence.

Organised criminal groups not only facilitate marriages of convenience, they also use them to enable further criminality. In one example from earlier this year:

In February 2013 several members of a London based solicitors' firm were convicted for arranging over 1,000 marriages of convenience. Clients of the firm's marriage of convenience facilitation service included members of an Albanian organised crime group who wanted 'free movement rights' in order to smuggle £900 million worth of cocaine into the UK.

In some cases, organised crime groups exploit EU nationals and oblige them to participate in marriages of convenience. In these cases the EU nationals are the victims of trafficking by organised crime groups.

In August 2013, several men were on trial in the North of England for kidnapping and trafficking a Slovakian national to the UK who was forced to take part in a marriage of convenience.

In the UK the evidence indicates that marriages of convenience are increasing and that organised crime groups play a significant role in arranging these marriages. We are also very concerned about reports which indicate that EU nationals have been trafficked and forced to participate in such marriages.

4.2 Abuse of European Union documentation

Every year approximately over 1,000 non-EU nationals arrive at the UK Border and try to gain entry by fraudulently using European Union documentation and pretending to be a Union citizen with a right of free movement.

In 2011, the UK Border Force detected 1,494 non-EU citizens who attempted to gain entry to the UK by falsely presenting themselves as a national of an EU Member State with a right of free movement. Many thousands more fraudulent documents are detected en route to the UK by carriers and by UK staff based at airports around the world.

Italian and Greek Identity Cards were the most commonly abused documents by non-EU nationals and accounted for more than one in five false documents identified at the UK Border in 2011. In total, five of the top ten abused documents encountered at the UK border in 2011 were EU Identity Cards.

For operational security reasons we cannot provide the full data on all fraudulent documents encountered at the UK Border.

4.3 False claims of dependency, paternity or family relationship and the false provision of information

All these types of abuse, false of family relationship (including paternity), false claims of dependency and the false provision of information are of concern in the UK. However, it is not possible to extract statistics on these types of abuse as this would require a manual search of all relevant Home Office files.

4.4 Abuse of free movement rights by Union citizens

Union citizens can also abuse free movement rights. The fundamental right of free movement is established in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union but as the Treaty sets out, this right is subject to conditions and limitations. For example, to have a right to reside in another Member State for longer than three months Union citizens and their family members must meet the criteria in Articles 7, 12 or 13 of Directive 2004/38/EC.

The majority of Union citizens, who come to the UK, do so in order to genuinely and effectively exercise Treaty rights. However, in our experience EU nationals can abuse their Treaty rights by coming to the UK in reliance on free movement but with no intention of genuinely and effectively exercising rights. In some cases, movement is primarily for the purposes of engaging in criminal activity in the UK.

Over the last two years approximately 3,101 nationals of other EU Member States were subject to enforced removal from the UK (1,808 in 2012 and 1,293 in 2011)[20]. As of 30 June 2013, approximately 4,000 EU nationals were in British prisons.[21]

There is also increasing qualitative evidence, through case-study reporting by Immigration Enforcement Teams and the Police, that the abuse of free movement rights by EU nationals is increasing, both through the non-exercise of Treaty rights (such as rough sleeping and begging) and, in some cases, associated criminal offending. For example:

Operation Chefornak is a joint initiative involving the Metropolitan Police Service (London), Westminster City Council, the Home Office and the Romanian Embassy and Romanian Police to tackle the issues of antisocial behaviour and begging in Westminster (central London). The operation has been running since November 2011 and to date has seen 796 arrests and the issue of 73 'cease and desist' warning letters.

A specific operation under Chefornak earlier this summer (July 2013) saw 62 cease and desist notices handed out to Romanian nationals. 40 rough sleepers decided to return to Romania and 21 of those chose to leave immediately and flights were arranged for them. The Romanian Embassy and outreach charities were involved in the operation along with Police and Home Office.

We have recently received reports of new types of behaviour by EU nationals seeking to avoid the genuine and effective exercise of Treaty rights. In London EU nationals are exiting and re-entering the UK in order to repeatedly rely on their initial three month right of residence established in Article 6 of Directive 2004/38/EC. The purpose of the behaviour is to avoid the requirements, set out in Article 7 of Directive 2004/38/EC, which should be fulfilled to have a right of residence for longer than three months.

Offending by EU nationals who come to the UK solely for the purposes of criminal activity can take many forms, ranging from serious organised crime to lower level activity. For example, in advance of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games gangs of EU nationals came to the UK, in reliance on free movement rights, solely to steal (pickpocket) from tourists.

5. The abuse of free movement rights and public reaction

In the UK there is significant public awareness of the abuse of free movement rights. There is regular media coverage of issues such as marriages of convenience, fraudulent documentation and criminality committed by EU nationals.

As the UK authorities have previously indicated to the Commission, the abuse of free movement rights, including by EU nationals who come to the UK with no intention of exercising Treaty rights or for the purposes of criminality, is very damaging to public perceptions and support for free movement. The Home Office receives hundreds of letters every year on this topic, for example, from December 2012 - February 2013 the Home Office received over 289 letters from members of the public which touched on the abuse of free move movement rights.

6 beings_in_the_european_union_2011.pdf. Back

7  Back

8   It should be noted that this sampling exercise was undertaken to demonstrate of the number of proxy marriage certificates received by the UK authorities. The exercise has not been externally verified and should not be considered as official statistics. Back

10  9   ONS, Population by Country of Birth and Nationality Report, August 2013. Back


11   ONS, Population by Country of Birth and Nationality Report, August 2013. Back

12   ONS, Population by Country of Birth and Nationality Report, August 2013. Back

13   ONS, Migration Statistics Quarterly Report, August 2013. Back

14   ONS, Labour Market Statistics, August 2013. Back

15   Founder Member States and Counties acceding prior to 2004. Back

16   ONS, National Insurance Number Allocations to Adult Overseas Nationals Entering the UK - registrations to March 2013, August 2013. Back

17   Founder Member States and Counties acceding prior to 2004. Back

18   Countries acceding since 2004 - EU8, EU2, Malta and Cyprus. Back

19   Europol, Marriages of Convenience as a means to enter and remain in the EU, December 2012. Back

20   Estimated figures and subject to caveats. Back

21   Ministry of Justice, figures subject to caveats and may include non-British citizens present in Immigration Removal Centres. Back

previous page contents next page

© Parliamentary copyright 2014
Prepared 5 February 2014