Appendix
INTRODUCTION
The Home Office would like to thank the Committee
for its report published in July 2014 on the work of the immigration
directorates. We welcome the Committee's consideration of our
ongoing work in the areas of Immigration Enforcement and UK Visas
and Immigration.
The Home Office has considered the recommendations
of the report and the Government's response is below.
SHAM
MARRIAGES
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION
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.
TAKEN
WITH
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION
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.
TAKEN
WITH
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION
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.
TAKEN
WITH
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION
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
STATE STRONG
COMMITMENT TO
ENFORCEMENT, ALL
THOSE INVOLVED
IN THE
PROCESS MUST
REMAIN VIGILANT
TO THOSE
INDIVIDUALS TRYING
TO EXPLOIT
LOOPHOLES IN
THE SYSTEM.
GOVERNMENT'S
RESPONSE
Tackling sham marriage is a Home Office priority
and we are taking tough action to crack down on those who try
to cheat our immigration system through abusing our marriage laws.
Legislative changes within the Immigration Act 2014 will strengthen
our ability to prevent sham marriages taking place, and we are
actively developing our operational response, including through
close joint work with registrars.
Alongside the General Register Office (GRO), Senior
Registrars and officials in the local registration service, we
are delivering training that highlights the statutory duty to
report suspicions of sham marriages. The GRO has also issued guidance
and a training package for registrars on the new data sharing
powers in the Immigration Act, and a programme of training workshops
is being organised for early 2015.
Operationally, we work with the National Registration
Panel at a strategic level to increase the effectiveness of our
operational activity. This includes extra targeted support to
registration districts where section 24 reporting is unexpectedly
low. At a local level, Immigration Enforcement teams across the
UK work closely with their counterparts in register offices to
develop effective working relationships and to highlight the value
of registrars' work in identifying suspected sham marriages.
Additionally, regional training workshops are being
organised for early 2015 to support implementation of
the new referral and investigation scheme, as provided for in
the Immigration Act 2014. The workshops will reinforce the e-learning
and guidance on section 24 reporting but also provide an
in depth overview of the new referral and investigation scheme.
Within the Home Office, we have also strengthened
our ability to ensure that anyone who enters into a sham marriage
does not gain an immigration advantage as a result, including
through:
- piloting a new operational approach to deal with
the problem, with three sham marriage hubs in Croydon, Glasgow
and Solihull led by our Criminal Investigation officers;
- creating a specialist crime team working in close
partnership with the marriage interview team in Liverpool; and
- developing prosecution training for 80 frontline
enforcement staff, equipping officers with additional sanctions
to tackle the threat of sham marriage.
We also continue to undertake targeted operations
to test and refine our tactics to deliver a wide range of sanctions
that are flexible and responsive to the changes employed by those
seeking to abuse this route. The ongoing activity across the Home
Office will continue to drive the intelligence picture from all
angles and allow us to identify and disrupt individuals and organised
crime groups engaging in sham marriages.
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION
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
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 HAVE
TAKEN THE
ISSUE SERIOUSLY.
THE HOME
OFFICE SHOULD
PUBLICISE THE
DATA THAT
THEY HAVE
ON THE
LEVELS OF
REPORTING, THE
NUMBERS OF
INTERVENTIONS, THE
NUMBER OF
ARRESTS, THE
NUMBER OF
PROSECUTION AND
THE NUMBER
OF REMOVALS.
GOVERNMENT'S
RESPONSE
Provisions in the Immigration Act 2014 will substantially
strengthen our ability to identify and tackle sham marriage before
any immigration application is received. We are developing a detailed
communications plan ahead of the implementation of the sham marriage
provisions within the Immigration Act 2014. It is expected that
the investigation process provided for within the Act will act
as a deterrent and consideration will be given to the best way
to publicise the data on operational activity in order to maximise
the deterrence effects of any announcements. This will also ensure
that the public and Parliament are provided with relevant information
on this issue. Operationally, Immigration Enforcement has already
made some changes to improve performance and to introduce innovations
to current processes, including development of three dedicated
sham marriage hubs in Scotland, Croydon and the Midlands.
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION
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.
GOVERNMENT'S
RESPONSE
The new referral and investigation scheme, as provided
for in the Immigration Act 2014, will provide the Home Office
with more time, information and evidence before the marriage takes
place. This will help in identifying, and taking effective enforcement
or casework action to prevent the non-EEA national gaining an
immigration advantage. The scheme will act as a significant
deterrent against sham marriages but we will consider the committee's
recommendation as we assess the impact of implementing the measures
in the Immigration Act 2014.
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION
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.
TAKEN
WITH
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION
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.
GOVERNMENT'S
RESPONSE
We have recently changed our processes to ensure
that every section 24 report is properly captured on the Intelligence
Management System (IMS). This enables us to track every report
to an outcome, which was not previously possible. We will work
with local registration service staff locally, as well as with
the National Registration Panel to ensure working arrangements
are put in place to provide appropriate feedback.
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION
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
ABUSE.
GOVERNMENT'S
RESPONSE
As a result of the action we are taking to tackle
the problem of sham marriage, outlined in response to Recommendations
1 - 4, we anticipate registrars will alert us to a high number
of suspected sham marriages. However, we expect that the robust
response we have developed will reduce the volume of people seeking
to exploit marriage and immigration laws.
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION
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.
GOVERNMENT'S
RESPONSE
A series of documents were provided to the independent
Chief Inspector for Borders and Immigration on 17 October 2013,
including intelligence activity, operations, arrests and removals.
We also provided details of the number of criminal investigations
we had undertaken and the outcomes.
In developing the communications plan ahead of the
implementation of the sham marriage provisions within the Immigration
Act 2014, we will consider the best way to keep Parliament and
the public abreast of progress, aligning the deterrence value
that strengthened communication can bring.
The Home Office takes enforcement of the immigration
rules very seriously and has created dedicated sham marriage hubs
to trial new operational interventions and assess on all cases
whether prosecution, as well as immigration enforcement action,
is appropriate.
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION
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.
GOVERNMENT'S
RESPONSE
The Home Office will be delivering a comprehensive
communications plan for the Immigration Act 2014, to ensure effective
implementation of the sham marriage provisions. The Home Secretary
has consistently raised the issue of abuse of free movement rights
with European counterparts and the European Commission has finally
acknowledged that the abuse of free movement, including through
sham marriage, is a serious problem.
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION
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 PURPOSE
OF BRITISH
LAW BY
MEANS OF
ONLY 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.
GOVERNMENT'S
RESPONSE
Under case law, we recognise marriages contracted
overseas which are legally valid in the country in which they
were conducted and which were properly conducted under the law
of that country. To do otherwise would prejudice genuine couples
lawfully married under the national law of the country of nationality
or residence of one or both of them. Some countries (e.g. Nigeria,
Ghana, Brazil) permit a 'proxy marriage', which allows a couple
to marry in circumstances in which they are physically separated
(e.g. because one is on military service, incarcerated or too
ill to travel).
In the case of applications under EEA routes, the
burden of proof required is initially on the applicant to show
that they are the family member of the EEA national and the normal
evidence for this is a marriage certificate. Where suspicions
exist that the marriage may not be genuine the Secretary of State
must show this to be the case.
To be recognised for UK immigration purposes, a proxy
marriage must be based on a genuine relationship. It cannot be
a sham marriage. The recent Independent Chief Inspector's report
on EEA casework showed that we scrutinise applications based on
a proxy marriage very closely: 90% of the applications based on
a proxy marriage in the sample reviewed by the ICI were refused,
generally because the marriage was found to be invalid or a sham.
UK VISAS
AND IMMIGRATION
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION
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.
GOVERNMENT'S
RESPONSE
Our aim this year is to ensure that for all new claims
received since 1st April 2014, a decision is given
within the six months service standard. However, asylum cases
are often complex and require our full and thorough consideration,
meaning some decisions will take longer than six months. Those
cases that do take longer than six months are actively managed
to ensure they are concluded as promptly as possible.
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION
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.
GOVERNMENT'S
RESPONSE
The Home Office's commitment is to review and communicate
a decision on all remaining live legacy cases by the end of 2014,
and to conclude cases, by way of a grant of leave or removal from
the UK, wherever possible. There are cases where the Home Office
completes a review and decides that it is not appropriate to grant
leave but will nevertheless be unable to remove the applicant,
for example due to fresh legal challenges or difficulties in getting
the appropriate travel documents. It is for this reason that we
can commit to review and communicate decisions on cases but not
guarantee that all will be concluded by the end of 2014. We will
not grant leave simply because we cannot remove.
While the Older Live Cases Unit is concentrating
on pre-2007 cases, Asylum Casework Directorate is aiming to ensure
all claims made before April 2014 receive a decision by 31 March
2015. In March 2014, we cleared all straightforward pre-2011 asylum
claims. In June 2014 we cleared all straightforward pre-2012 claims.
The achievement of these important milestones show our commitment
to clearing the current outstanding caseload.
IMMIGRATION
ENFORCEMENT
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION
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
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.
TAKEN
WITH
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION
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.
GOVERNMENT'S
RESPONSE
We are making regular inspection visits to the four
Secure English Language Test (SELT) providers, including unannounced
visits. Over 50 such visits have taken place this year. In addition,
our network of compliance officers visit large numbers of businesses
and education providers to ensure they are compliant with their
sponsor duties and obligations. We have increased the number of
unannounced visits to existing sponsors undertaken over the last
year, by over 50%; sustaining a growing trend since Q3 2013. Currently
76% of all visits to existing sponsors are unannounced.
The greatest proportion of the total number of unannounced
follow-up visits is always likely to be to Tier 2 employers rather
than to Tier 4 education sponsors. This is due to the significantly
higher number of sponsors that are licensed in Tier 2 (over 26,000)
compared to Tier 4 (1,600). Although unannounced Tier 4 follow-up
visits represent a small proportion of the overall total of unannounced
visits, 85% of all follow up visits to Tier 4 sponsors are currently
unannounced.
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION
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.
GOVERNMENT'S
RESPONSE
The Tier 4 published policy and guidance allows us
to suspend immediately a sponsor's licence, whilst we make further
enquiries, if we have reason to believe that they are breaching
their sponsorship duties and/or are a threat to immigration control.
If, after an investigation, we decide not to revoke the sponsor's
licence then we lift the suspension and reinstate the entry on
the register of sponsors on our website. If we decide to continue
suspension, we write to confirm this decision. The sponsor then
has 20 working days from the date of that written notification
to respond to us. We then consider the information provided and
have 20 working days to respond to the sponsor with our decision.
Where we are satisfied that we have enough evidence
to suspend a licence without the need for further investigation,
we write to the sponsor giving detailed reasons for suspending
their licence and give them 20 working days to respond. We then
consider the information provided and have 20 working days to
respond to the sponsor with our decision.
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION
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.
GOVERNMENT'S
RESPONSE
The low numbers of releases that follow from Rule
35 reports are not indicative of poor performance or an ineffective
system, but reflect the very low threshold for Rule 35 reports
to be made, especially in relation to torture concerns, which
make up the majority of reports. As a result, the majority of
Rule 35 reports are unlikely to constitute independent evidence
of torture. In many cases, the issues raised in Rule 35 Reports
will have been considered previously in the disposal of an asylum
claim, including at appeal, and taken into account as part of
the detention decision.
Even where a report does constitute such evidence,
consideration is given to whether very exceptional circumstances
apply (including protecting the public), which may mean that ongoing
detention remains appropriate. We will consider how to share the
findings of the audit when it has been completed.
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION
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 THESE
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.
GOVERNMENT'S
RESPONSE
We are starting the deportation process earlier and
removing foreign criminals quicker than ever, saving the tax payer
money, freeing up prisons and removing the opportunity for re-offending.
However, we agree that the FNO prison population is too high and
there is more we can do.
We look constantly at ways of removing FNOs at the
earliest opportunity. The number of FNOs deported under the Early
Removal Scheme (ERS) has increased under this government. In 2013,
we removed nearly 2,000 FNOs under ERS.
We have ongoing cross Government work to overcome
issues affecting FNO removals. We are focusing on improving performance,
removing barriers to documentation and addressing legal issues
through the Immigration Act.
We welcome the Committee's recognition of the positive
impact that Operation Nexus has had, which includes contributing
to more than 2,000 FNO removals. Nexus currently operates in 4
major police force areas (the Metropolitan Police area, West Midlands,
Manchester and Scotland) and is being actively rolled out to other
areas, including Kent, Merseyside, Cleveland, Wales and Lancashire.
We promote the successes achieved by Operation Nexus
through press releases, in conjunction with the relevant police
force. A key aim of Operation Nexus is to establish offenders'
true identities at the point of arrest. To this end we are working
closely with the police to ensure our IT systems are used as effectively
as possible by both organisations.
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION
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.
GOVERNMENT'S
RESPONSE
When reporting immigration or customs crime on www.gov.uk
the public are instructed to call 999 if reporting a crime that
is in progress or that someone is in imminent danger.
Internally, Border Force Intelligence revised their
operating procedures specifically to cover dealing promptly with
urgent or high risk cases. In these situations, BF Officers
must check the subject is on the Warnings Index. If they are not,
the receiving port must be notified by telephone and WICU must
be contacted immediately. If the Border Force Officer fails to
do so, disciplinary procedures may be appropriate.
Border Force is committed to ensure the watchlist
is continually updated and monitored. The Border Force Operational
Assurance Directorate has developed a new assurance framework
that will check that suspects and persons of interest are being
added to the Warnings Index within agreed timescales.
BORDER
AGENCY BACKLOGS
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION
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
RECOMMENDATION
THAT THE
BACKLOGS MUST
BE CLEARED
AS A
MATTER OF
PRIORITY.
GOVERNMENT'S
RESPONSE
The 332,169 number quoted goes beyond the Migration
Refusal Pool and reflects case working across the Home Office.
The number of people in the Migration Refusal Pool itself has
consistently been shrinking over the last few quarters. This is
not a static backlog of cases awaiting removal; Capita manages
the flow of cases into the pool as well as clearing older cases.
Without their work, the pool would stand at approximately 315,000
rather than just below 176,000 as at the end of March 2014. This
work will continue to be a priority.
|