7 Enforcement
Key figures
- 40% of post-licence visits to Tier 2 sponsors were unannounced between 1December 2011 and 31 March 2012
- 37% of post-licence visits to Tier 4 sponsors were unannounced between 1 December 2011 and 31 March 2012
- 25% of post-licence visits to Tier 5 sponsors were unannounced between 1 December 2011 and 31 March 2012
- 160 sponsors had their licenses suspended between 1 December 2011 and 31 March 2012
- 140 sponsors had their licenses revoked between 1st December 2011 and 31 March 2012
- 31% of non-compliance notices from Tier 2 sponsors were acted on between 1 December 2011 and 31 March 2012
- 69% of all Tier 4 sponsor notifications issued over the period 1December - 31 March had been investigated by June
|
Inspections of Sponsors
70. All migrants using the Points Based system (PBS) route, apart
from Tier 1 migrants, require a sponsor in order to obtain their
visa. The Agency carries out inspections or 'visits' of individual
sponsors. Some of these are pre-registration visits made on application
and others are follow up visits to check that sponsors remain
compliant.
PRE REGISTRATION INSPECTIONS
71. New sponsorship applications and pre-registration visits made
are compared in table 7 below.
| Tier
| Total sponsor applications
| Pre registration visits
|
| Tier 2
| 2,048
| 364 |
| Tier 4
| 59* |
35 |
| Tier 5
| 230 |
19 |
Table 7: New sponsorship applications and pre-registration
visits carried out over the period
In this table, pre-registration visits do not necessarily
relate to sponsorship applications made in the same period. However,
the data gives some indication of the ratio of pre-registration
visits to new sponsor applications. During the period, pre-registration
visits to Tier 2 (skilled worker) sponsors were 18% of new sponsor
applications, while visits to Tier 5 (Youth Mobility Scheme) sponsors
were 8% of new sponsor applications. The Agency visits all institutions
that apply to become Tier 4 sponsors for the first time. The applications
making up the figure for the latest period include renewed applications
and applications for Highly Trusted Sponsorship status, which
is why not all Tier 4 applicants received a pre-sponsorship visit.[51]
72. We acknowledge that the Agency carries out
pre-registration visits for all Tier 4 sponsors but recommend
that this should be extended to cover all sponsors in Tier 2 and
Tier 5. The proportion currently receiving a pre-registration
visit is insignificant. Proper pre-registration scrutiny of sponsors
is the key starting point for preventing abuse of the immigration
system. We are concerned that the Agency's approach may be more
risky than risk-based. We will require additional information
from the Agency as to how it assesses the risk posed by sponsors
in this area.
POST LICENCE INSPECTIONS
73. The Agency carries out follow up visits based
on an assessment of risk and on an intelligence-led basis.[52]
Figure 10 post licence inspections over the period
Of these visits:
- 40% to Tier 2 sponsors were
unannounced
- 37% to Tier 4 sponsors were unannounced
- 25% to Tier 5 sponsors were unannounced
74. The Agency says that it arranges the greater
proportion of its visits in advance as it needs to be sure of
access to key people and documents as part of the inspection.
We understand the need for this but, as the visits are made in
a response to perceived risks or intelligence leads, we recommend
that all visits are unannounced. If the Agency is not able to
access some of the people and documentation on the day then follow
up interviews and document review could take place subsequent
to the visit. Interviewees could be required to come to the Agency's
premises to save the Agency time and money. This would considerably
strengthen the enforcement system and help to restore public confidence
that the government is clamping down on illegitimate immigration.
If we are to eliminate bogus colleges from the education landscape
and employers that abuse the immigration system then visits will
have to be unannounced, robust and thorough.
ACTION AGAINST NON-COMPLIANT SPONSORS
75. The Agency does not have the power to fine Tier
2, 4 and 5 sponsors for misuse of their licence. It is able to
suspend their licence pending further investigation for Tier 2
and Tier 5 sponsors, revoke licences for all sponsors and reduce
the number of Certificates of Sponsorship (CoS) or Confirmation
of Acceptance for Studies (CAS) that they are able to issue. It
is also able to prosecute sponsors who commit immigration offences.[53]
76. Over the previous period the Agency has taken
the following enforcement action against sponsors:
- Suspended the licence of 140
Tier 2 and 20 Tier 5 sponsors
- Revoked the licences of 130 Tier 2 sponsors and
10 Tier 5 sponsors[54]
77. We are sceptical about the efficacy of reducing
the number of Certificates of Sponsorship or Confirmations of
Acceptance for Studies that a sponsor can issue. This is tantamount
to endorsing fraud, provided that it is confined to a small scale.
If a sponsor is failing to comply with their duties or is deceiving
the Agency then their licence should be revoked. The Agency should
take tough enforcement action against those who abuse the immigration
system.
Action against individuals
78. Sponsors are obliged to notify the Agency if
there are changes in the situation of any of the people they sponsor,
known as Sponsor Management System (SMS) notifications. These
could be administrative changes such as changes in work place
or salary or non-compliance notifications, for example if a student
was no longer attending their university course. It is the Agency's
responsibility to investigate the latter and to curtail the leave
to remain in the UK of any individuals found to be no longer complying
with the conditions of their visa. If necessary, the Agency is
also responsible for removing them from the country.
ACTION TAKEN AGAINST TIER 2 WORKERS
LIABLE FOR CURTAILMENT ACTION
79. The Agency received 21,300 Sponsor Management
System notifications from Tier 2 sponsors over the period. Of
these, 4,500 were non-compliance notifications. The Agency had
only investigated 1,400 or 31% of these notifications by the end
of the period, the remaining 69% were outstanding.
80. The Agency says that the low number of cases
investigated is due to increased concentration on curtailment
activity in Tier 4 at the expense of Tier 2. The Agency appears
to be constantly 'fire fighting' in a number of areas of its work,
shifting resources to focus on one area whilst letting a backlog
build in another and then re-adjusting to address the new backlog.
ACTION TAKEN AGAINST TIER 4 WORKERS
LIABLE FOR CURTAILMENT ACTION
81. Some 35,300 SMS notifications were made by Tier
4 sponsors over the period, relating to visas for adult students.
Unlike for Tier 2 notifications, however, the Agency tells us
that it is not possible to specify how many of these notifications
relate to non-compliance, as they are not electronically flagged
by category. A new system has been introduced since 6 April that
will allow sponsors to categorise their notifications. We are
astonished to learn that, until April 2012, the Agency had no
way of immediately separating urgent notifications regarding potentially
fraudulent students from routine notifications of administrative
changes. This is especially surprising as such a system seems
to have been in place for Tier 2 notifications for some time.
82. As of 3 June, 24,400 of these notifications (69%)
had been investigated. This is a much better rate of enforcement
than seen in Tier 2—the Agency suggests that it is at least
in part at the expense of Tier 2 enforcement —but it is
still not as high as we would have hoped to see given the concentration
on this Tier. Either the operational model within this section
of the Agency is inefficient or it is under-resourced for the
demands placed upon it. We recommend that the Agency urgently
reviews its operations in this area to pinpoint the cause of the
problem. If we are to maintain public confidence in our immigration
system then it is vital that we have prompt and robust enforcement
mechanisms. We will keep a close watch on this area of the Agency's
work and investigate the causes of the continuing backlog. We
regard enforcement action against individuals as a key indicator
of the Agency's work and we will be monitoring it closely.
Migration Refusal Pool
83. On the 5th July the Chief Inspector
of the Border Agency, John Vine, brought the existence of yet
another backlog to our attention, the Migration Refusal Pool.
This consists of individuals who have had their application to
extend their visas refused but the Agency has no idea whether
or not they have actually left the country. There are 150,000
of these cases nationally, and the Inspector says he could not
see evidence of any clear strategy to deal with them.[55]
We are extremely disturbed to hear that there is yet another
large group of individuals who the Agency are unable to account
for. We expect the Agency to set out, in its response to this
report, its action plan and timeline for dealing with the problem.
51 Ev 46 Back
52
Ev 46 Back
53
Ev 48 Back
54
Ev 48 Back
55
John Vine, Chief Inspector of the UK Border Agency, Report: An
inspection of the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Local Immigration
Team, p2 Back
| 
