Conclusions and recommendations
Immigration Enforcement Directorate
1. It
is too early to evaluate the operational impact of the abolition
of the UK Border Agency. David Wood, the interim Director General
of the Immigration Enforcement Directorate told us, establishing
a new corporate culture and identity will play a significant part
in improving the Home Office's immigration and enforcement activities.
(Paragraph 10)
2. We are concerned
that the activities formerly carried out by the UK Border Agency
continue to be carried out under the defunct UKBA banner, both
online and at the border. This could cause confusion and could
lead the general public to come to the conclusion that nothing
has really changed. We recommend that the Home Office immediately
removes UKBA branding, since the agency no longer exists. (Paragraph
11)
Immigration Bill
3. We
note that there was no pre-legislative scrutiny of the proposals
in the Bill, and recommend that the Home Office always make use
of pre-legislative scrutiny wherever possible. (Paragraph 14)
4. We have no objection
in principle to the introduction of a charge for access to the
National Health Service for those who are in the UK only temporarily
and would therefore not otherwise be making a long-term contribution
to the NHS. However, we recommend that the Government distinguish
between those who are temporarily in the country through choice—to
work, study or visit family—and those who are here through
no choice of their own, such as refugees and victims of trafficking.
To charge these vulnerable people for access to NHS care would
be wholly wrong. We recommend the Government commission a pilot
scheme to assess the feasibility of enforced health insurance
for short-term visitors to the UK who require a visa. The issuing
of a visa should be linked to submission of evidence of health
insurance from a legitimate provider. We note that other countries
such as Australia have a similar scheme in place. (Paragraph
17)
5. The proposed new
housing measures in the Immigration Bill must not produce a bonanza
for unscrupulous landlords who already operate outside the law,
driving more people into the twilight world of beds-in-sheds and
overcrowded houses in multiple occupation. (Paragraph 25)
6. The Committee is
concerned about the implications of this proposal on millions
of private landlords across the county. This additional regulatory
burden, in effect requiring them to carry out immigration checks
on behalf of the Home Office, is challenging. There are over 404
legitimate European identity documents alone on which landlords
will have to base their decision. There is a possibility that
landlords will discriminate against all immigrants regardless
of their status rather than take the risk of housing a person
without right to remain. There is also a possibility that unscrupulous
landlords will hold tenants who are suspected of being an illegal
immigrant to ransom. Therefore we recommend that as part of the
Government's scrutiny of the Immigration Bill they commission
an impact assessment to gauge the likely effect of these proposals
on discrimination against migrants. (Paragraph 26)
Deterrents
7. We
welcome the Home Secretary's announcement on 22 October 2013 to
scrap the immigration AdVans campaign. It makes perfect sense
to encourage those who are in the UK illegally to leave of their
own volition, and to provide them where necessary with practical
support to do so. It is the most cost-effective way of removing
illegal immigrants from the country and provides good value for
money for the taxpayer. A more effective and less menacing message
would be that the Government is willing and able to support those
who are here illegally to return home if they want to. That is
not to say that tough enforcement action will not be taken against
those who are determined to remain here illegally, but for the
target audience of potential voluntary returners, the effectiveness
of the carrot is potentially undermined by the ostentatious brandishing
of the stick. (Paragraph 33)
8. It remains to be
seen how many, if any, illegal immigrants left the country as
a result of this campaign. Given that the pilot was only six days
long we expect the Home Office to publish the results of the evaluation
immediately. (Paragraph 34)
9. Although we welcome
the Government's tough stance on tackling illegal migration, we
urge the Government to review its use of social media to publicise
immigration raids. We have no evidence to suggest that those pictured
in immigration raids may have actually committed an offence or
been in the UK illegally. We recommend the Home Office review
its use of social media and those who are charged with controlling
its output. (Paragraph 38)
10. Despite no firm
decision having been formally announced about the immigration
bonds pilot, the Committee are concerned that the damage has already
been done to relationships between the UK and the 'high risk'
countries. We recommend that the Home Office engage immediately
with their counterparts in these 'high risk' countries to work
together to find mutually acceptable solutions to deal with the
issues of illegal migration. We are very sceptical of this proposals
and we hope the Home Office will consult with the Home Affairs
Committee before they come to any conclusion on whether to introduce
this scheme and the practicalities of doing so. (Paragraph 43)
11. Whilst the Committee
welcome the progress made by the Home Office towards tackling
the issue of bogus students we are concerned that only 5% of the
total applicants are currently being interviewed. We reiterate
our previous recommendation that we have made on numerous occasions
that the Home Office make face to face interviews compulsory for
all foreign students where it is practical and appropriate to
do so. (Paragraph 46)
Reporting
12. The
Committee are extremely concerned about the number of allegations
that are made to the Allegations Management System that are not
investigated. We recommend that all allegations are actioned and
checked against national databases. It is incomprehensible that
only 1.5 in 100 reports of illegal immigration result in someone
being removed from the country. (Paragraph 50)
13. Numerous Government
Ministers, including the Prime Minister who in a speech in October
2011 to 'report suspected illegal immigrants to our Border Agency',
have reiterated the need to report immigration abuse to officials.
We continue to be concerned that despite making formal allegations
about immigration abuse, those who do so are not informed of the
outcome of their complaint. This risks undermining confidence
in the system and could lead to reluctance to report such allegations
if the public perceive that no action is being taken. We recommend
that the directorate respond to those who make allegations to
inform them of the outcome of their investigations. (Paragraph
51)
E-borders
14. The
non-implementation of the 'Salah Action Plan' is evidence of immigration
officials apparently not correctly following Ministerial instructions.
The Home Secretary in the past made a commitment to ensuring that
a similar situation does not occur in future. We recommend that
the Government investigate this breach of protocol to understand
why this has been allowed to happen again. (Paragraph 62)
15. We see no reason,
given that passenger information is already collected on departure,
that exit checks could not be implemented immediately. The situation
whereby you only show your boarding card on departure and not
your passport could be readily remedied if passport scans were
implemented at the entrance to security clearance. We are concerned
that the timetable for procurement is vague and unrealistic, noting
that a short procurement process will favour the current suppliers
IBM and Serco. We remain deeply concerned that the e-borders programme
will not be operational by 2015. It is worth nothing that Australia,
South Africa and Saudi Arabia have all had this e-borders technology
in place for a number of years, but the UK still has not. We should
be at the forefront of this process. We recommend the Government
publish the timetable for the procurement of the e-borders programme
immediately. We will continually revisit this issue as part of
our scrutiny of the immigration service and will return to it
in detail when the Permanent Secretary Mark Sedwill, gives evidence
to the Committee in December this year. (Paragraph 63)
Deportation
16. It
is completely unacceptable that, even after the death of Jimmy
Mubenga, the Home office continues to receive dozens of complaints
each year about potential breathing difficulties caused by the
use of physical force in immigration detention centres and on
removal flights. We recommend that future contracts for the provision
of immigration detention and escorted removal services should
include punitive financial penalties where contractors' staff
are found to have used unauthorised restraint techniques. (Paragraph
67)
Parental responsibility at the border
17. We
recommend that the Government publish, before the end of the Parliament,
an analysis of the risks and benefits of including an option for
parents' names to be recorded in their children's passports. We
also recommend that Border Force publish on its website and at
ports of entry clear guidance on the circumstances under which
adults travelling with children might be required to prove that
they have parental responsibility, and the documentary proof that
they might be required to produce. (Paragraph 69)
Key indicators of the Agency's performance
18. The
Agency has continued to make slow progress in removing the 2006
cohort of foreign prisoners, - the number of foreign national ex-offenders living
in the community decreased by 100 in the first quarter of 2013.
The length of time taken to deport an ex-FNO is still 129 days,
or over 4 months. We cannot understand why it takes so long to
deport an ex-FNO. In the first quarter of this year, there was
an increase in the number of failed removals to 289, or 25% of
the total number of removals. These problems must not be allowed
to go unchecked. The progress by the agency to tackle the backlog
of ex-FNOs living in the community is far too slow. The Home Office
should seek to speed up this process. (Paragraph 71)
19. When the controlled
archives closed the Agency had 33,900 backlog asylum cases and
7,000 backlog immigration cases that it needs to conclude. Most
of the individuals concerned will have waited many years to find
out the result of their applications. We reiterate our recommendation
that the Home Office must now prioritise the conclusion of their
cases and work fast to give them a swift decision. (Paragraph
73)
20. We are concerned
to see yet another increase this quarter in the number of asylum
cases waiting more than six months for an initial decision. This
has been on the rise since the end of 2011. The number of applicants
still waiting for an initial decision after six months rose by
63% in 2012. The time taken to process asylum applications is
an issue which we have considered in more detail in
our inquiry into asylum. If such increases in delay continue,
there will be scepticism whether the administrative change from
UKBA into the present arrangement will make any difference. (Paragraph
74)
21. We have documented
the Agency's shocking level of customer service in our
previous reports on its work. Although processing of applications
in Tiers 1 and 2 has improved in this quarter, there has been
a decline in the number of Tier 2 and 5 applications processed
on time. When Sarah Rapson gave evidence to us, she emphasised
the need for UK Visas and Immigration to adopt a more customer-focused
approach to its work. That is clearly something that
is urgently required and we hope that the re-organisation of immigration
and visa services will provide the framework in which it can happen.
But nobody in the Home Office should be under any illusion that
the re-organisation will in and of itself deliver service improvements.
We reiterate our previous recommendation that these backlogs must
be cleared as a matter of urgency. (Paragraph 75)
22. We welcome the
reduction in size of the Migration Refusal Pool. We are concerned
that this is not happening quickly enough. When the Government
announced the contract with Capita, worth up to £40million
over four years, we expected the numbers in the backlog to decrease
significantly. We reiterate our previous recommendation that the
way to prevent the backlog from growing is to check applicants
as soon as they are refused, rather than wait months to do so. Otherwise
the backlog will never be cleared. (Paragraph 78)
23. The Committee
remain to be convinced of the worth of sending SMS messages to
suspected illegal immigrants in getting them to leave the country.
The Committee wrote to Capita to request information about the
contract. Capita referred the Committee to David Wood, Interim
DG of Immigration Enforcement, who missed the deadline for responding
to the letter. Despite numerous calls to his office, this information
has not been received. Mr Wood has failed to keep to his promise
to write back to the Committee on this subject. The Committee
now expects that the Home Office publish immediately the terms
of the contract with Capita and the number of illegal immigrants
who have left the country as a result of this campaign. (Paragraph
79)
24. It is absurd that
at a time when the Government has promised to create a 'hostile
environment for illegal immigrants' that there has been a significant
decline in the proportion of post-license visits that were unannounced
in all sponsor Tiers. We reiterate our previous recommendation
that the Home Office must undertake 100% unannounced visits on
sponsors where it suspects non-compliance. This is the most effective
way of dealing with bogus student applications. (Paragraph 80)
Border Agency Backlogs
25. The
Committee welcomes the reduction of 70,438 in the number of cases
in the backlogs. However, we note that the majority of cases in
this reduction, 51,013, is on cases waiting to be loaded onto
the computer. In real terms that means that the backlog of cases
awaiting resolution has only been reduced by 19,421. The Home
Office still do not appear to be getting to grips with this issue.
The backlog is still at an astonishing 432,029, which will mean
at current levels it will still take over 5 years to clear, notwithstanding
the addition of new cases or the discovery of new backlogs. The
Committee reiterate our previous recommendation made on numerous
occasions that the backlogs must be cleared as a matter of priority.
(Paragraph 81)
| 
