Conclusions and Recommendations
Sham marriages
1. We agree with the Independent
Chief Inspector when he said that sham marriages represent a significant
threat to immigration control. The bogus spouse acquires not only
the right to reside in the UK, but the right to bring their children,
grandchildren, parents and grandparents to live here with them.
Thus one sham marriage can provide UK residence rights to an entire
extended family who would otherwise have no right to be here.
(Paragraph 3)
2. The fact that the burden
is on the Home Office to show that a marriage was a sham when
it entered into, regardless of its current state, means that intervening
at or before the point of marriage will usually be the most effective
way of tackling this growing problem. We would also suggest that
early intervention in cases of obvious shams is likely to be more
cost-effective, as it reduces the scope for lengthy casework and
possibly legal appeals after the event. Effective joint working
between the Home Office's Immigration Enforcement Directorate
and local authority registrars is therefore the key to tackling
the problem of sham marriages. (Paragraph 20)
3. We accept that there might
be some registration districts where the number of sham marriages
is very small indeed, but we find it implausible that there should
be sizeable cities in the UK where there are no sham marriages
at all. Registrars need to be aware that sham marriages appear
to be a growing problem and that they have a duty to report those
that they suspect are sham marriages. We recommend that the Home
Office provide additional training for registrars, targeted at
those registration districts where the number of section 24 reports
is unusually low in comparison to similar districts, on how to
recognise the signs of a possible sham marriage and the circumstances
in which a section 24 report should be made. (Paragraph 21)
4. We should not under-estimate
the duplicity of those involved in organising sham marriages,
which has turned into an industry and appears to be increasing
at an alarming rate. Given the Home Office's stated strong commitment
to enforcement, all those involved in the process must remain
vigilant to those individuals trying to exploit loopholes in the
system. (Paragraph 22)
5. The Independent Chief Inspector
of Borders and Immigration told us that the Home Office does not
appear to know how many people are securing the right to stay
in the UK on the basis of a sham marriage. Whilst we are aware
that publishing data that shows hot-spots of sham marriage activity
might give information to organised criminals, we want the Home
Office to demonstrate that they take the issue seriously. The
Home Office should publicise the data that they have on the levels
of reporting, the number of interventions, the number of arrest,
the number of prosecutions and the number of removals. (Paragraph
23)
6. The Immigration Act 2014
has extended the minimum time between a couple giving notice of
their intent to marry and the ceremony, allowing more time for
the Home Office to act on reports sent from registrars. The registrars
represent a crucial source of intelligence to the Home Office
about potential sham marriages and we expect the Home Office to
act upon those reports. We recommend that the law be changed so
that if the Home Office enforcement team do not act upon the section
24 report, and the registrar is confident the wedding is a sham,
then the registrar should have the power to not proceed with the
wedding. (Paragraph 30)
7. It is clear that there is
a blind spot which leads to the under-reporting of sham marriages.
The registrars that gave us evidence told us that they received
little or no feedback from the Home Office in response to their
section 24 reports. Registrars were consistently unable to tell
us how many of their reports led to further action or no action,
or, more, importantly whether or not they led to a prosecution.
(Paragraph 31)
8. The Home Office must, as
a matter of routine, provide registrars with feedback on every
section 24 report: whether it resulted in no action, in an individual
being removed from the country, in prosecution, or some other
outcome. This will help to reinforce to registrars the importance
of reporting potential sham marriages, it will help them over
time to develop a better understanding of the nature of the problem,
and it will help to foster a spirit of mutual co-operation between
registrars and the Home Office. Crucially, it will reassure the
public. Similarly, we believe that there should be an opportunity
for registrars to provide feedback to the Home Office in cases
where they feel their well-founded suspicions were not acted on,
and to receive an explanation for the Home Office's action in
the case. (Paragraph 32)
9. It is apparent from the reports
of the Independent Chief Inspector that the level of resources
applied to this problem is critical, and we are not convinced
that the current level of resourcing is sufficient compared to
the scale of the abuse. (Paragraph 33)
10. The Home Office was unable
to provide the Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration with
management information on the number of prosecutions or removals
from the UK as a result of sham marriage. Without any such data
it is hard to believe any assurance from the Government that they
are prioritising the problem and pursuing those who are attempting
to circumvent immigration rules. Successful and well publicised
prosecutions would help deter those from considering taking part
in a sham marriage and incentivise registrars, and the general
public, to report their suspicions. The number of section 24 reports
more than doubled between 2010 and 2013. The Home Office should
be able to tell the Committee what impact that increase had on
prosecutions and on removals. (Paragraph 36)
11. The Home Office should write
to the Embassies of those European nationals who are most commonly
involved in sham marriages, and encourage them to inform those
who pass through their Embassy or Consulate that being involved
in a sham marriage can lead to a criminal record and removal from
the UK. (Paragraph 37)
12. While we agree with the
general principle of respecting marriage ceremonies held in other
countries, it seems absurd that two people, both resident in the
UK, can be lawfully married for the purposes of British law by
means only of a proxy ceremony carried out overseas. At the moment,
the burden of proof is on the state to prove the proxy marriage
is unlawful. The burden of proof should be on the couple applying
for a residence card, based on a proxy marriage, to prove the
proxy marriage is lawful. (Paragraph 39)
UK visas and immigration
13. In our last Report we commented
on the increase in the number of asylum cases waiting more than
six months for an initial decision. This trend has continued for
the last eight quarters. We consider this unacceptable, and see
no evidence that the government is achieving either its stated
aim of making over 90% of initial decisions within six months
or Sarah Rapson's aim of all straightforward cases getting a decision
within six months. We agree with Sarah Rapson that there is no
reason not to make an initial decision on straightforward cases
promptly, and urge the government to take steps to achieve this
aim. (Paragraph 47)
14. At the current rate, it
will take until 2019 to clear the backlog, an unacceptably long
delay and much worse than the Home Office committed to. We were
told that reducing the older asylum cases would free up staff
to address the new asylum cases, and make it more likely that
the Government would meet its own aspiration of 90% of initial
asylum decisions being made within six months. Progress has been
unacceptably slow, and the Home Office's continued failure to
deal with the backlog is jeopardising prompt and fair treatment
of new applicants. This must be addressed. (Paragraph 49)
Immigration enforcement
15. The recent episode of English
Language testing abuse illustrates the need for UKVI and Immigration
Enforcement to continue to inspect education providers, and for
as many of the visits as possible to be unannounced. We note that
the greatest proportion of unannounced follow-up visits is overwhelmingly
to Tier 2 employers and that a much smaller number is to education
sponsors under Tier 4. The Home Office should explain why the
number of unannounced visits are so overwhelmingly for Tier 2
employers rather than Tier 4 education providers. (Paragraph
52)
16. We have repeatedly called
on the Home Office to increase the number of unannounced follow-up
visits to visa sponsors and we welcome the dramatic improvement
during 2013. (Paragraph 53)
17. While we entirely support
the government's aim to crack down on bogus colleges and any organisations
that have wilfully helped people to evade immigration controls,
it is not appropriate to punish institutions where there is no
evidence to support allegations of wrongdoing. The Home Office
should act promptly to tell suspended organisations exactly what
they are accused of, and to immediately end suspensions unless
there is clear evidence. (Paragraph 54)
18. We welcome the audit of
Rule 35 casework and look forward to seeing the results, and what
action the Home Office will take in light of the audit. We are
still concerned that such a small percentage of Rule 35 Reports
lead to release. We will continue to look at this subject as part
of our ongoing work into Immigration Removal Centres. (Paragraph
58)
19. Foreign National Offenders
currently make up about 13% of the prison population. As the Prime
Minister said, having all these people in our prisons is an enormous
waste of money. Reducing the number of Foreign National Offenders
in our prisons is in all our interests, and finding ways to identify
those criminals who could be deported before they enter prison
would be an enormous help. The Home Office should publicise any
positive impact that Operation Nexus has had and, in particular,
the number of foreign nationals identified as foreign nationals
and deported as a result. We note the positive steps taken towards
starting the deportation process early as part of Operation Nexus.
We recommend that the Government go further and compel offenders
to prove their nationality at the point of sentencing or face
penal sanctions. This would enable the Home Office to start the
process of deportation of offenders more quickly and to ensure
it runs more smoothly. (Paragraph 61)
20. The case detailed in the
Parliamentary Ombudsman's report clearly shows the importance
of constantly updating and monitoring the watchlist. The Home
Office must act upon the Ombudsman's report and ensure that cases
similar to that of Mrs A's family are not repeated. (Paragraph
64)
Border Agency backlogs
21. Although the total number
of accumulating Home Office backlogs has decreased, we are concerned
by the huge increase in the number of in country applications
where the application has been received and is awaiting input
onto the Home Office computer system (CID). We repeat our concern
that the total number in the migration refusal pool has not gone
down by an appreciable amount from when the Home Office had contracted
Capita to address this matter. The total backlog remains at 332,169
and does not appear to be reducing at an appreciable rate. The
Committee reiterates its previous recommendation that the backlogs
must be cleared as a matter of priority. (Paragraph 65)
| 
