Conclusions and recommendations
1. We
welcome the appointment of Mr Whiteman on a lower salary of £175,000
and look forward to taking evidence from him in December. (Paragraph
4)
2. The
level of waste at the UK Border Agency is unacceptable. We recommend
that the Government undertake and publish the results of a detailed
investigation into this and consider how the UK Border Agency
can improve its financial and data management. (Paragraph 5)
3. We welcome
the very significant reduction in the number of foreign national
prisoners who were released without being considered for deportation,
from 1,013 in 2006 to just 28 in 2010-11. In order for performance
at the current level to be maintained, the Agency will need to
ensure that it communicates regularly with prison services regarding
the potential release dates of prisoners. We are nonetheless concerned
about the remaining 28 and ask the Agency to take all practicable
steps to locate them. We consider that with proper liaison between
the HM Prison Service and the Border Agency the numbers of foreign
national prisoners released without being considered for deportation
will be reduced to zero. (Paragraph 7)
4. The
UK Border Agency is considering whether to deport 1,300 foreign
national prisoners who were released in 2010-11. The fact that
only 500 of these are detained is troubling, and the UK Border
Agency needs to provide a full and detailed explanation for why
they have released 800 foreign nationals who have previously broken
the law. It is unacceptable that in more than a quarter of cases,
the Agency is unable to explain why these foreign nationals have
not yet been removed. This is another example of poor data management
and inconsistent with the UK Border Agency's stated commitment
to transparency. The Agency must improve its systems for recording
difficulties in deporting former foreign national prisoners. (Paragraph
9)
5. We recommend
that the Agency undertake an analysis of contact between case
owners and foreign national prisoners. If certain methods are
found to increase the likelihood of foreign national prisoners
returning to their country of origin, they ought to be invested
in as a priority. (Paragraph 11)
6. In his
statement to Parliament in 2006, the then Home Secretary suggested
that the Home Office would deal with the legacy backlog in five
years or less. They have concluded 455,000 cases, however we do
not consider the 18,000 cases which have received an initial decision
but are awaiting removal as 'dealt with'. No matter how those
at the UK Border Agency interpreted that pledge, it was not a
pledge that all cases would have a decision but rather that all
cases would be concluded. We recommend that the Agency establish
a challenging target date for the completion of these removals
in any case no later than 31 March 2012 and we expect Mr Whiteman
to present us with a time table for completion when he next gives
evidence. (Paragraph 17)
7. We are
also concerned by the transfer of 18,000 outstanding files from
the Case Resolution Directorate to the Case Assurance and Audit
Unit. This action risks giving the impression that the UK Border
Agency are using bureaucratic terms to hide the fact that they
were unable to meet the July 2011 deadline. We recommend the Government
investigate whether this transfer was simply a name change or
whether the files were transferred to a different location to
be worked on by different staff. We note that in general the claim
that the backlog has been dealt with conflicts with the experience
of MPs in terms of what they are told in response to enquiries
about individual cases. (Paragraph 18)
8. Whilst
we appreciate the difficulties involved in tracing people with
whom the Agency have lost contact, usually for a period of several
years, it is clear that the controlled archive has become a dumping
ground for cases on which the Agency has given up. The controlled
archive has increased significantly as the deadlines for the legacy
backlog and the migration case review have approached. From 18,000
files in November 2010, the archive now contains 124,000 files,
roughly equivalent to the population of Cambridge. With the end
of the legacy backlog and review of the outstanding migration
cases, we see no reason why the size of the controlled archive
should increase further. We recommend that the Agency produce
clear and specific guidance on the controlled archive which covers:
- how often the files will be reassessed;
- how many staff will work on reassessing files
in the controlled archive; and,
- when, if ever, files will be closed without the
applicant being located. (Paragraph 25)
9. We also
object to the term 'controlled archive'. It is another instance
of a bureaucratic term which hides the true nature of a government
department's activity and is designed to deflect attention away
from it. The controlled archive would be more appropriately referred
to as an archive of lost applicants. (Paragraph 26)
10. We
have long been concerned by the conduct of staff towards detainees
during enforced removal and have previously questioned contractors,
the UK Border Agency and ministers about the issue. We are particularly
concerned by reports of the questionable behaviour of contracted
staff taking place after the system was put under scrutiny and
stated to have been reformed following the death of Jimmy Mubenga.
We intend to take evidence from the Chief Inspector of Prisons
regarding his recent reports on the treatment of detainees and
will produce a report on enforced removals in the near future.
However, it should be expected that appropriate disciplinary action
should be taken at all times against those who behave in ways
that clearly are not acceptable. Companies involved should be
made aware that further incidents as described in previous paragraphs
could lead to the loss of contracts with the UK Border Agency.
(Paragraph 29)
11. It
is unacceptable that the UK Border Agency is unable to give us
more detailed information about the role that intelligence plays
in protecting the UK's borders. The Independent Chief Inspector's
report suggested that there was inconsistency in the way that
intelligence was collected and used and this is also unacceptable.
We recognise that the Agency is trying to improve the way it uses
intelligence but we feel that in order for its staff and the public
to appreciate the importance of individual allegations, the outcomes
must be demonstrated. (Paragraph 34)
12. The
Prime Minister has called on the public to report those believed
to be guilty of immigration offences. We strongly support the
Government in this stance but there is no point if the UK Border
Agency does not use the intelligence provided. We believe that
the vigilance of the public ought to be rewarded by the publication
of recorded outcomes. We recommend that the UK Border Agency produces
a timetable for the improvement of intelligence processes which
contains information on:
- how the agency will process information;
- how many staff will be working on intelligence;
and
- the date that the intelligence database will
be linked with the recommendations database. (Paragraph 35)
13. We
further recommend that the Agency produce quarterly figures showing:
- How many 'tip-offs' they have received;
- on how many cases they have taken action; and
- how many people have been removed following a
'tip-off'. (Paragraph 36)
14. The
figures for successful appeals at immigration tribunals are worrying.
However we have been informed that the success rate of the UK
Border Agency will improve following statutory changes restricting
new evidence being introduced at appeal. There is no doubt that
the outcome of appeals would be improved if the Agency were to
improve the quality of its representation. We expect the Agency
to be represented at all appeal hearings so that the case for
refusal can be properly made. (Paragraph 38)
15. The
case of Mr Raed Salah highlighted a number of flaws in the UK's
border control. Six opportunities for intervention were missed.
These mistakes were then compounded by the lack of information
provided to Mr Salah following his arrest, which mean that the
Home Office will now have to pay damages to a man who the Home
Secretary believed should never have been able to enter the country
in the first place. This is inexcusable and unacceptable. When
the Home Secretary signs an exclusion order, it ought to be served.
We urge the UK Border Agency to implement urgently the eight recommendations
of the HMIC to ensure that this never happens again. (Paragraph
41)
16. We
cannot understand why the UK Border Agency is unable to tell us
how many students had their leave curtailed or were deported for
breaking the terms of their visa. We are surprised that the Agency
is unaware of the term 'bogus college' as it has been used by
Ministers and this Committee. We are also shocked if the worst
punishment a sponsor who misuses their licence faces is the revocation
of their licence, although previous evidence seems to contradict
this statement. We would ask the Agency to confirm this is the
case and clarify this point. On previous occasions we have come
across anecdotal evidence that the Agency is not always clear,
fair and consistent in its dealing with colleges, and while we
support efforts to deal with wrongdoers and institutions that
fall below the required standard, we are satisfied that most colleges
provide an important educational service and contribute to their
local economy. It is therefore important that the Agency understands
the need to maintain a proper balance and is helpful to genuine
educational institutions. (Paragraph 45)
17. The
involvement of an MP in a constituent's case often comes as a
last resort, when other approaches have failed. The high degree
of correspondence between the UK Border Agency and MPs is evidence
of failure earlier in the process. We intend to examine this
further the next time the Chief Executive of the UK Border Agency
comes before the Committee in December. In the meantime, we would
welcome evidence from MPs and their staff about their dealings
with the Agency. (Paragraph 46)
18. We
recommend that it become UK Border Agency policy that if an MP
becomes involved in a case then the Agency automatically copies
the MP in on any correspondence to the applicant. This will enable
MPs to close cases once they have been resolved. This would be
both courteous and efficient and should be acted upon at once.
(Paragraph 47)
19. We
welcome the introduction of MP account managers but they have
to have authority within the Agency and be able to obtain information
quickly and accurately in order to provide an improved service
to MPs. In order to aid our fellow parliamentarians, we have attached
the list of the account managers of each region to this report.
We will be asking MPs whether the new system has provided the
improvements that are being claimed for it. If the improvements
we wish to see take place, it could well be there would be a reduction
in the 66,000 letters from MPs and peers in a single year. (Paragraph
48)
20. The
UK Border Agency's provision of information to this committee
falls short of the standards that the House is entitled to expect
and on which the Government itself insists. The Agency has certainly
not been "as open and helpful as possible", as civil
service guidance requires. There is every risk that the Agency's
failure to provide us with the information we require, in a format
which is appropriate for our needs and within the time requested
will undermine effective Parliamentary scrutiny of the Agency's
work. We hope that the standard of information provided by the
Agency will improve in response to this Report. If it does not,
then we will seek the information from the Home Secretary in person,
in accordance with the principles set out in the Ministerial Code
and related guidance on the provision of information to select
committees. (Paragraph 54)
21. Despite
the scandals of both foreign national prisoners and the legacy
backlog happening in 2006, they have still not been completely
resolved five years later. Immigration is an issue which affects
the safety, the social cohesion and the economy of Britain as
well as its standing on the world stage. For that reason we will
continue to hold sessions with the UK Border Agency every four
months or possibly even more frequently. (Paragraph 55)
| 
