Conclusions and recommendations
Migrants in Calais
1. We welcome the
Joint Statement between the UK and French governments on Calais,
and the £12 million investment over three years from the
UK Government on security measures at Calais, taken in cooperation
with the French. Juxtaposed border controls mean that we operate
our border on French soil (as the French do at Folkestone), so
issues around border integrity need to be shared. The joint statement
between the UK and French Governments is a welcome acknowledgement
of the two countries' shared responsibilities in this area. (Paragraph
8)
2. It is important
that improvements in security at one site do not simply displace
clandestine activity to another site. Much of the investment from
the UK Government appears to have gone into improving security
around the Port of Calais ferry terminal, rather than the Eurotunnel
terminal at Coquelles. If the Government accepts there is a security
problem at both sites, then it should contribute to security measures
at both sites. (Paragraph 9)
3. It is apparent
that extra security slows the traffic, creates queues and can
increase the vulnerability of the lorries to infiltration by migrants.
Improvements in security must be combined with improvements in
managing the traffic flow. (Paragraph 10)
4. The people of Calais
are presented with a difficult situation not of their own making.
They have a large population of transient homeless people who
show little desire to settle in Calais. The townspeople are bound
by humanitarian instincts to look after the migrants near Calais,
particularly the families and children, and they do not want a
large number of people sleeping rough in Calais town. We understand
of course why the day centre and the night shelter have been provided,
and such support will only ever be temporary and cannot provide
a long term answer to the problem. Such camps have the potential,
like Sangatte, to make a bad situation worse. The UK Government
has repeatedly stated that it is not providing funds for the day
centre or night shelter. The Joint Statement between the UK and
French Governments states that the Governments will take effective
measures to protect vulnerable persons such as the victims of
human trafficking, and that this will include "ensuring such
victims receive appropriate support and assistance". The
Government should explain what specific support it is providing,
if it is not contributing towards the day centre or night shelter
at Calais. (Paragraph 12)
5. The French and
UK Governments should ensure that the migrants in Calais have
access to advice on asylum, and understand that a successful claim
is a legal path to secure rights in the EU. Every effort must
be made to ensure someone who is fleeing war or persecution, who
could apply for asylum either in France or the UK, does not decline
the opportunity through a lack of information, or the provision
of misinformation by fellow migrants, traffickers or others. Disrupting
the criminal gangs and their influence over the migrants is an
important part of achieving this objective. There needs to be
a sustained campaign to inform migrants in Calais of the reality
of life in the UK and France, of their rights to claim asylum,
and the safety that a successful claim can bring. (Paragraph 17)
6. It would be highly
persuasive that the approach of the UK Government towards improved
security at Calais was effective, if the UK Government could demonstrate
the increase in asylum applications in Pas-de-Calais with published
figures. (Paragraph 18)
7. Countering illegal
migration creates a huge amount of work and absorbs a vast amount
of resources. The number of interceptions by Border Force and
PAF, the French Border Police, highlights the sheer scale of the
problem. And yet we have seen no evidence that France or the UK
is pursuing a policy of processing and deporting the individuals
found at Calais. We find it bizarre that there are thousands of
attempts to enter the UK illegally through Calais, at great cost
and inconvenience to business and leisure travellers, transport
companies, and hauliers, and yet the people who are caught are
simply released back into the French countryside. Nothing in this
process appears to serve as a disincentive to returning to Calais
and trying again and again, and there is no evidence it has affected
the number of migrants living in the Calais area. It appears to
be an admission of stalemate and something must be done to break
this cycle. (Paragraph 21)
8. We welcome the
work of the Task Force to address human trafficking and look forward
to further updates of its successful work. The joint statement
between the UK and France on Calais said the measures to fight
organised gang involvement in trafficking would be effective immediately,
and we welcome the number of joint investigations between the
UK and French authorities aimed specifically at criminal gangs
involved in trafficking. The joint statement said it would commit
the UK to set clear and ambitious targets to show the full impact
in the fight against organised immigration crime. We recommend
that the Government publish these targets and publish the performance
against these targets. (Paragraph 23)
9. The situation in
Calais needs to be dealt with as near to the source countries
as possible. This is an international problem which can only be
addressed by concerted efforts on the part of the international
community. The UK Government, in cooperation with other nations,
must continue to address the factors that force large numbers
to migrate from their own country to Europe. (Paragraph 26)
10. Securing Europe's
southern external border should be a high priority for the EU,
and current arrangements are clearly not working. In particular,
Operation Triton has failed in its central objective of reducing
migration in the central Mediterranean. Heedless of the increased
risks to the lives of migrants, the traffickers continue to load
people onto overcrowded vessels that are not fit to reach Lampedusa,
let alone the European mainland. (Paragraph 27)
11. The deaths of
so many people in the Mediterranean is a cause for great concern.
People traffickers seem to act with impunity. The UK and French
governments, both who have historic links to North Africa, should
take the lead in ensuring the EU makes a priority of stopping
the flows of migrants at source and cutting off the funds that
are obtained by criminal gangs who deal with people trafficking.
(Paragraph 28)
12. The Schengen Agreement
was designed to enable travel without border checks between Member
States. The citizens of those countries enjoy free movement without
the inconvenience of passport or identity checks. Unfortunately,
it also makes it easier for individuals who have illegally entered
the EU to move between countries. Migrants heading to the UK become
stuck at Calais only because the UK did not sign up to Schengen
and the border controls remain. The countries of Schengen need
to acknowledge that as far as migrant issues are concerned, the
Agreement is not working as it was intended. (Paragraph 30)
13. The free movement
of migrants within the Schengen area has implications for each
country and their own approaches to immigration and to asylum.
The countries of southern Europe, in particular Greece, Italy
and Spain, need assistance in managing the immigration flows,
but they also need other countries within the Schengen area to
take their share of the burden. Otherwise trust breaks down and
mechanisms like the Dublin Convention do not work. (Paragraph
31)
Exit checks
14. The Government
must provide this Committee, no later than 27 March 2015, an exhaustive
list of those categories of travel which will be including within
the scope of 100% exit checks and of those which will not. The
Government should also provide an estimate of the percentage of
all travellers who will and will not fall within the scope of
the programme. (Paragraph 34)
15. The Coalition
Agreement said "We support E-borders and will reintroduce
exit checks." We have been told several times by the Government
that it will deliver 100% exit checks for all passengers leaving
the UK by the end of March 2015. However, as of February 2015,
a number of significant exclusions have crept into this pledge,
excluding those travelling within the common travel area with
the Republic of Ireland, and under-16s travelling by coach. (Paragraph
42)
16. It is becoming
obvious that the Home Office cannot guarantee exit checks will
be in place on 8 April 2015. Logistical problems remain around
how to inspect passports for fifty individuals in a coach, who
cannot be seen from the check-in booth. This has been known from
the start. It is not clear if the systems that collect the passport
data will be compatible with the ferry companies' existing systems.
The Home Office is faced with a decision whether to push the date
back further and allow for effective preparation, admit there
are problems in some transport, such as coaches, which could involve
introducing exit checks gradually, or assert that nothing is wrong
and carry on as normal. (Paragraph 43)
17. We would not be
surprised if further forms of travel or categories of passenger
were declared out-of-scope to allow for exit checks to be declared
a success. We recommend that the Government publish a single,
definitive document listing what is in scope and what is out of
scope of the exit checks scheme. (Paragraph 44)
18. In our previous
report on the work of the Immigration Directorates we warned that,
if implemented wrongly, there was a chance that exit checks could
introduce delays and queues, that these will be highly visible
and could have a serious impact on UK business, trade and tourism.
There has been plenty of time to discuss how exit checks would
be implemented. The responsibility for making sure that exit checks
are introduced without any problems lies with the Home Office.
(Paragraph 45)
Criminal record checks
19. The Home Office,
the police and Border Force are clearly reliant on access to timely
information to enable them to intervene when criminals attempt
to enter the UK. The murder of Alice Gross and the violence inflicted
on Professor Paul Kohler show that such reliance is inadequate.
Other agencies in Europe need to make relevant data available
via the criminal records system and the Schengen Information System.
The Home Office needs to have the IT system in place that can
manage the volume of information and disseminate it to the relevant
bodies in the UK. E-borders has been terminated. The Warnings
Index is over fifteen years old, and considerably overdue to be
renewed. While API coverage is good for those entering by air,
it is poor for people entering by rail or boat. We support the
Government's efforts to improve the data it receives from other
countries on people with criminal records who the UK may consider
undesirable. However, we are unconvinced that the Home Office's
IT systems are fit for purpose given the ever increasing volume
of data. (Paragraph 51)
UK Visas and Immigration
20. The number of
asylum applications receiving an initial decision within six months
has increased steadily since the beginning of 2012. Only in the
final quarter of 2014 has the number decreased, to 11,629. This
does represent progress, particularly in light of the increasing
number of applications, but the number waiting is still too high.
We welcome the acceptance in UKVI that this is an issue and the
new resources dedicated to address the problem. The fact that
the additional resource has been added is an admittance that the
restructure in 2012 that led to a reduction in the number of staff
making decisions was a mistake. Performance is improving, but
we cannot see how all applications will receive an initial decision
within 6 months by the end of March 2015. (Paragraph 58)
21. In Q4 2014, there
were 20,473 cases remaining in the OLCU. Over 10,000 cases have
been removed since Q4 2012. We welcome the continued reduction
in asylum cases in the Older Live Cases Unit since Q4 2012. (Paragraph
59)
Immigration Enforcement
22. We have made numerous
recommendations relating to how Immigration Enforcement address
the issues of Foreign National Offenders. Immigration Enforcement
have put resources into addressing the problem, but there improvements
that could still be made, particularly around securing agreements
with other countries, and implementing those agreements, to remove
FNOs. We recommend that our successor Committee in the new Parliament
continue to scrutinise the subject of Foreign National Offenders.
(Paragraph 64)
Border Agency Backlogs
23. The backlog total
remains over 351,000. The biggest contributor to the total backlog
remains the Migration Refusal Pool currently at 174,000. In early
2012, when we started publishing a table of outstanding cases,
the Migration Refusal Pool was at 150,000. Three years and a £4
million contract to Capita later, the Migration Refusal Pool has
increased in size. We repeat our previous recommendations that
these backlogs must be cleared as a priority. (Paragraph 65)
24. Over this Parliament,
the Committee has monitored the performance of three chief officers
for immigration and visas. We welcome the abolition of the UKBA.
However, the structural change must go hand in hand with the change
of personnel in such cases. We commend the work of the current
head of UKVI, Sarah Rapson. Under her leadership, the directorate
has responded well to the challenges posed by the Committee. We
have seen improvements to customer service, in particular the
key role of the MPs account manager. What MPs and their constituents
want is simple answers to straightforward questions such as "Where
is my case in the system?" "How long will it take?"
and "When will it be determined?" We are, at last, seeing
an improvement in this system. The good work of the international
section headed by Simon Hayes should also be acknowledged. However,
this work may well be compromised if the number of ECOs is reduced
and the overseas operations curtailed. Not everything can be done
in Sheffield. We hope that our successor Committee will continue
to produce regular scrutiny of the immigration service so that
the gains made over the last five years will not be dissipated.
(Paragraph 66)
| 
