2 Preventative and early intervention
measures to reduce the number of foreign national offenders
9. The Home Office accepted that it did not routinely
have data on its border systems about people who have committed
crimes overseas. The Home Office told us that it was working to
fill gaps in the information it holds so that it would be better
placed to refuse entry at the border to foreign nationals who
have committed offences.[14]
It plans to join the Schengen Information System, which shares
warning alerts about foreign nationals within its member countries.[15]
In addition the Home Office told us that it was leading negotiations
with European partners to share proactively information on criminals
convicted of serious offences. It is also working with the Metropolitan
police and the British Transport police to gather information
about low-level offending and aims to include this data in its
front-line systems.
[16]
10. The Metropolitan Police told us that from the
police perspective it was important for public safety that officers
carry out the checks and searches required when they arrest someone
suspected of being a foreign national to help establish whether
they are wanted abroad, their immigration status, and what their
previous offending might have been. Despite the importance of
these checks and searches they are simply not happening in the
vast majority of cases.[17]
11. For example, following the publication of the
National Audit Office's report, the police's use of the Association
of Chief Police Officers Criminal Records Office's connection
to the European Criminal Record Information System to check on
foreign nationals' criminal histories in overseas countries had
increased from 30% to 40% of foreign nationals arrested, mostly
as a result of a significant increase in checks carried out in
London.[18] In addition,
automatic checks between fingerprint machines in police stations
and the Home Office's immigration database—to ensure foreign
nationals have permission to remain in the country—were
now available to 5 out of 43 police forces, up from only 1 at
the start of 2014.[19]
The National Audit Office estimated that at least £70 million
could be saved each year by simply making better use of databases
and information on foreign nationals.[20]
12. Operation Nexus, a pilot scheme launched jointly
in 2012 by the Home Office and Metropolitan Police Service to
improve police identification of immigration offenders and increase
awareness about checks and searches, appeared to be working well
in London. However, it has not been rolled out across all police
forces, despite the idea first being considered in 2007.[21]
The Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration completed
an inspection on Operation Nexus in June 2014, but the Home Office
prevented the publication of his report for over 5 months. The
Independent Chief Inspector told us that lengthy delays in publishing
reports risked reducing the effectiveness of independent inspection,
which depended to a large extent on timely publication of findings,
and that this was contributing to a sense that the independence
of his role was being compromised.[22]
It is absolutely essential that the integrity and independence
of the Chief Inspector should be maintained and that there is
no interference in the timing of publication of his reports.
13. There are 14 designated foreign national prisons
in England and Wales (including two foreign national offender-only
prisons) where immigration officers work with prison officers
to try and persuade offenders to comply with immigration and removal
requirements to secure their earlier removal.
The Home Office told us that this arrangement helped to increase
foreign national offender removals and that in its foreign national-only
prisons 86% of offenders were removed within their early release
period. The National Audit Office, however, has been unable to
substantiate this figure.[23]
We also heard that some prisons with large numbers of foreign
nationals, such as Bristol, had no coverage from immigration officers.[24]
The National Offender Management Service admitted that, while
better than in the past, immigration officers and prison officers
still did not work well enough together, and it would be looking
to improve and share best practice more widely in future.[25]
As an example of poor joint working, the National Audit Office
noted that immigration officers and prison officers could not
use each others' IT systems in one prison it had visited, because
of different levels of security clearance.[26]
14 Q234 Back
15
Qq 160-161 Back
16
Q 234 Back
17
Qq 120-123; C&AG's report para 2.1, 2.3, 2.11-2.13 Back
18
Q 125 Back
19
Qq 131-132; Letter from DAC Rodhouse to the Committee 13 November
2014 Back
20
Q 130; C&AG's report para 2.15 Back
21
Qq 133-135; C&AG's report para 2.11-2.12 Back
22
Qq 138-147; C&AG's report para 2.12; Letter from the Independent
Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration to the Committee, 12
November 2014 Back
23
Qq 250-251; C&AG's report para 2.17 Back
24
Qq 109-110 Back
25
Qq 265-266 Back
26
Q268 Back
| 
