Conclusions and recommendations
Exit checks
1. The
Committee has, in successive reports, highlighted the need for
everyone who enters and leaves Britain to be counted in and counted
out. This enables us to know accurately exactly who is in our
country. We note that both the Minister and the Director General
of Border Force have assured this Committee that 100% exit checks
will be in place by 31st March 2015. We hope that they can deliver
this, and expect them to inform the Committee urgently if this
no longer looks likely, and in particular to update the Committee
on this target before the last scheduled meeting of this Committee
before dissolution. (Paragraph 9)
2. It is very important
that the system to carry out exit checks works efficiently, so
that it can meet what are understood to be the aims of the policy,
without introducing unnecessary queues and delays. Any queues
that develop as a result will be highly visible and could have
a serious negative impact on business, trade and tourism. Transport
operators have voiced serious concerns of the opportunities such
delays offer to illegal migrants to attempt to embark vehicles.
The Committee has noted these concerns and has seen the situation
for itself on a visit to Calais. We will be considering this matter
in detail in our next report. We welcome the trials being carried
out in Dover and Folkestone to ensure any system adopted has been
tested as thoroughly as possible. (Paragraph 10)
3. Exit checks will
be carried out by the transport operators' staff, not Border Force.
However, those transport companies have, for some time, expressed
serious doubts that the exit checks can be put in place according
to the Government's timetable, which will require full exit checks
by 1 April 2015. We share these concerns. (Paragraph 11)
4. The Home Office
was wrong to take so long to respond to the letter of 24 September
2014 sent to it by John Keefe of Eurotunnel which set out a number
of concerns and action points. The Committee will require a detailed
update from the Home Office by 31 January 2015 so that we can
assess whether or not any further action should be taken. (Paragraph
12)
A single immigration
target
5. The Government
made a clear commitment to reduce net migration from the hundreds
of thousands to the tens of thousands. The Government has admitted
it is unlikely that the target will be met before the General
Election. We agree. The commitment did not make a distinction
between EU and non-EU migration, nor allow for emigration falling.
Ministers argued that the government did not anticipate either
an increase in EU immigration or a fall in emigration. This is
not a sufficient explanation for its failure to meet the target,
but serves to highlight the difficulty in setting a single headline
target that relied upon factors that could not be controlled.
No Government of whatever political composition can control the
number of people who voluntarily leave the country. This raises
questions about future immigration policy. An arbitrary target
set by ministers, however well intentioned, only serves to reduce
public confidence in the ability of any Government to deliver
a future pledge on immigration. (Paragraph 21)
6. Rapid expansion
of the country's total population can have far-reaching consequences,
both positive and negative, across many aspects of national life.
We believe that the Government should continue to be clear about
its aspirations for a desirable level of net migration. However,
a single figure target is too blunt an instrument for this purpose.
The Government also needs to be clear about which factors are
and are not within its control, and about which migration flows
it wishes to contain, and which it wishes to encourage. (Paragraph
22)
Reports of the
Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration
7. It is unacceptable
for the Home Office to withhold from public view reports produced
by the Independent Chief Inspector of Immigration and Borders
for longer than one month without providing a good reason. Parliament
and the public have a right to have access to this information
in a timely manner after its compilation. After all, the Chief
Inspector is supposed to be independent of Government, not answerable
to it. (Paragraph 28)
8. We note that, following
pressure from this Committee, the Government has now published
all the outstanding reports from the Independent Chief Inspector
before the end of December 2014. In future, we should return to
the system where reports were given to Parliament as soon as they
are completed. We also recommend that the Government sign a protocol
with the incoming Independent Chief Inspector, restating their
intention to publish all reports within one calendar month of
receipt. These delays are inexcusable because the reports expose
faults in the system which must be rectified immediately. The
longer it takes to publish these reports, the longer these errors
and failings are going to continue within the Home Office. (Paragraph
29)
9. John Vine will
be retiring from his position as Independent Chief Inspector at
the end of 2014. We would like to place on record our thanks to
Mr Vine for the thoroughness of his work, the speed and efficiency
at which he has carried it out, and his ability to discover information
from within the Home Office that seems to have bypassed the entire
management structure including the board of the Visas and Immigration
Department. The fact that one individual working in a small team
has managed to find so many errors begs the question of why there
is not proper internal oversight. Mr Vine has done much to help
focus attention on areas of the immigration and borders system,
and contributed in many important ways to the scrutiny of the
work of the Home Office. We wish him well in the future. (Paragraph
30)
10. Due to the nature
of the Independent Chief Inspector's work, we consider that it
is appropriate that this Committee conduct a pre-appointment hearing
for his successor in the New Year, once the Home Secretary has
identified a preferred candidate. This will ensure that Parliament
is involved in the selection of a candidate who plays an important
independent role and is not answerable to Government and would
provide consistency with other Chief Inspectors, including those
for Constabulary; the Crown Prosecution Service; Education, Children's
Services and Skills; Prisons; and Probation. (Paragraph 31)
Foreign national
offenders
11. In successive
reports, the Committee has highlighted the failure of successive
Governments to deal with problem of FNOs. The public simply cannot
understand why people convicted of a criminal offence in our country
who are of different nationality are either still in the UK in
prison and have not been sent back to their home country, or are
at large in the community. (Paragraph 39)
12. We know that the
Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have, in the past, expressed
exasperation over this situation, however, unlike this Committee,
they can take action to do something about it. (Paragraph 40)
13. The Home Office
needs to implement, in full, the recommendations of the NAO, in
particular to inform each department or agency as to what it is
delivering on the cross party Action Plan on Foreign National
Offenders. (Paragraph 41)
14. The continued
poor record keeping is inexcusable. The NAO report highlighted
the importance of transparency to Parliament, and the need for
the department to report its progress on FNOs accurately and fully.
We agree. The Home Office must be able to provide accurate data
to this Committee. Failure to do so will leave Ministers and officials
open to accusation that they have been either deliberately or
inadvertently misleading Parliament, a serious charge that previously
led to the resignation of a Home Secretary on this very issue.
(Paragraph 42)
15. In previous reports,
we have recommended that information on nationality is provided
at sentencing and that passports are seized at that stage, and
only returned once the foreign national offender is ready to leave
the country. Greater cooperation and communication is needed between
the courts and prison service and the Home Office in order to
achieve this. We recommend that the Lord Chancellor and the Home
Secretary meet on a monthly basis to review progress, specifically
on the matter of FNOs. (Paragraph 43)
16. There is no point
in Parliament passing laws if they are not enforced and at present
we do not consider that Immigration Enforcement is doing its work
effectively enough. (Paragraph 44)
UK Visas and Immigration
17. This Committee
has in the past expressed concern about the way in which internal
service standards operate. We understand that there is a difference
between the service standards for applications submitted before
1 January 2014 and those submitted after that date. However, we
have seen three different versions of what service standards apply
to applications made after 1 January 2014. Changing service standards
without consultation or explanation is like moving the goal posts
once the game has started, and brings more uncertainty into a
system that already, for many, is incredibly complex, Kafkaesque
and slow. We recommend that the UKVI send us a single, definitive
copy of the service standards for applications submitted after
1 January 2014 by 31 December 2014. We also recommend that in
future, whenever service standards are reviewed and changed, that
this Committee be notified in a letter from the head of UKVI.
(Paragraph 52)
18. We recommend that
the Home Office publish the method by which it is assessing the
performance of UKVI in dealing with those cases that fall outside
the service standards. (Paragraph 56)
19. We recommend by
the 1 January 2015, the Home Office produces a flow chart that
illustrates how an application makes progress through the system,
showing the possible routes, and the implications of an application
being either straightforward or non-straightforward, but also
complex or non-complex, and if workable or blocked. The Home Office
should send a copy to this Committee and to all Members of Parliament.
It should also place a copy on the Home Office website so the
public can understand it. (Paragraph 57)
20. Backlogs of cases
have become a feature of application and visa work at the Home
Office. We do not believe that the Home Office has explained adequately
why there is a backlog in straightforward cases. (Paragraph 59)
21. The Home Office
needs to find a sustainable solution to the problem of providing
a consistent level of service within the context of diminishing
resources. Caseworker staff being moved to address a backlog building
up in the Passport Agency during the summer, which contributed
to a rise in the temporary and permanent migration pool, is a
good example of a short term solution to the latest area of concern
that does not deal with the enduring problem. However, removal
of staff from one area of the Home Office to another should not
result in further backlogs being created. (Paragraph 60)
22. We welcome the
move to establish service standards for asylum claims. However,
we do not know what these service standards are or when they will
be introduced and we recommend that the Home Office does so immediately
to bring certainty into the asylum system. (Paragraph 64)
23. We consider it
entirely unacceptable that almost half of asylum applicants do
not receive even an initial decision within 6 months. This is
a very long time period for people to have to wait for a first
response. We further recommend that the Home Office publish the
method by which it intends to assess the performance of UKVI in
dealing with the asylum cases that fall outside the service standards.
(Paragraph 65)
24. In the last six
quarters there has been a reduction in the total number of cases
to be loaded onto to the CID. There has also been a notable reduction
in the Temporary and Permanent Migration Pool. However, the backlog
total is over 304,000. The biggest contributor to the total backlog
remains the Migration Refusal Pool. The Home Office has contracted
Capita to address this backlog, and Capita has found many duplicate
cases and identified where people have left the country. The total
is being reduced, but very slowly, and if it was reduced at the
current rate of 70,000 a year it would take over four years to
remove. That does presume it carried on being reduced. Alarmingly,
the Migration Refusal Pool actually increased from Q1 to Q2 in
2014. We repeat our previous recommendations that these backlogs
must be cleared as a priority. (Paragraph 78)
| 
