Source · Select Committees · Public Accounts Committee
Seventeenth Report - Immigration enforcement
Public Accounts Committee
HC 407
Published 18 September 2020
Recommendations
6
We are not convinced that the Department is sufficiently prepared to safeguard the status of...
Recommendation
We are not convinced that the Department is sufficiently prepared to safeguard the status of individuals while also implementing a new immigration system and managing its response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Department faces several challenges in the immediate future. …
Read more
HM Treasury
View Details →
Conclusions (22)
2
Conclusion
The Department relies upon a disturbingly weak evidence base to assess the impact of its immigration enforcement activity. The lack of reliable evidence on what works prevents it from planning and prioritising its activities effectively. The Department accepts that it cannot easily use data to measure the impact of the …
3
Conclusion
The culture and make-up of the Department have left it poorly placed to appreciate the impact of its policies on the people affected. The Department has done little to dispel accusations that its decisions are based on a lack of curiosity, preconceptions and even prejudice. The Department acknowledges how close …
4
Conclusion
The Department’s failure to develop an end-to-end understanding of the immigration system leads to problems which it could avoid. At present, there are gaps in its digital and paper trail, and it is likely these have an impact on Immigration Enforcement’s ability to remove individuals from the UK. The Department …
5
Conclusion
The Department is unprepared for the challenges the UK’s exit from the EU presents to its immigration enforcement operations. The Department relies on cooperation with EU partners to support its international operations, including the return of foreign national offenders and individuals who arrive in the UK illegally via EU transport …
1
Conclusion
On the basis of a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, we took evidence from the Home Office (the Department) about immigration enforcement activities in the UK.1
7
Conclusion
The Department described the different forms of harm that occur from immigration crime. These include criminal harm by foreign national offenders against their victims and society, and the harm organised crime groups commit against society and vulnerable people. It also includes the financial harm to legitimate UK employers of competitors …
8
Conclusion
We asked the Department about the financial impact of providing public services to people who should not be receiving them. It could not provide a figure for this.13 We heard that the Department had no data on the harm suffered by people who were victims of organised immigration crime or …
9
Conclusion
The NAO reported that Immigration Enforcement uses management information to assess the performance of individual teams rather than the system’s overall health, and the Department accepted this finding.16 We asked whether the Department could deliver an effective immigration enforcement service without basic management information. The Department rejected the suggestion that …
10
Conclusion
We asked how the Department allocated resources across the immigration system and heard that this relies upon the judgements of senior staff rather than direct evidence. The Department explained that a “dearth of information” on some immigration enforcement activities meant it is not possible to assess the outcomes of deploying …
11
Conclusion
During the evidence session, the Department failed to provide a specific answer to questions about the characteristics of the illegal population or the evidence it used to make decisions.22 We asked the Department to provide us with facts to support its claims rather than possibilities or speculation.23 For example, the …
12
Conclusion
The Committee of Public Accounts has found previously that the Department did not use its own data to fully explore the impact of its work on individuals.27 During the evidence session, we asked whether the Department considered the implications of immigration enforcement actions for young people whose immigration status had …
13
Conclusion
We asked the Department to account for the plummeting number of people it returns to their countries of origin. The Department claimed that the fall in returns was because of greater compliance with immigration rules, changes to the legal framework and higher numbers of claims made on human rights, modern …
14
Conclusion
The NAO reported that Immigration Enforcement could make better use of its analytical functions and evaluations to improve as an organisation.34 The Department recognises the need to refresh its research and evidence base across the borders and immigration system and told us about its increasing use of analysis and evaluation …
15
Conclusion
The Department accepted that the Windrush lessons learned review had come exceptionally close to declaring it as institutionally racist. We were pleased to hear the Department commit to implementing each of the recommendations of that report and acknowledge the need to change the whole culture of the Department.38 We asked …
16
Conclusion
We asked whether Immigration Enforcement should focus on in-country immigration enforcement rather than having to provide support at the border. The Department responded that it sees managing immigration into the country and in- country as a single system.41 However, the NAO reported that the Department “does not yet manage” immigration …
17
Conclusion
The Department told us that it works with different parts of the public sector and Government, such as the Ministry of Justice, to deliver its immigration enforcement services, and that this cooperation may not appear in its performance data.46 We heard that Immigration Enforcement is providing more opportunities for face-to-face …
18
Conclusion
We asked what the Department could learn from its analysis of late asylum claims to reduce the number of these. The NAO reported that the Department failed to complete 62% of the returns it planned from immigration detention in 2019, compared to 56% in 2018.49 We heard how decisions and …
19
Conclusion
We asked about the impact of the UK’s departure from the EU on the Department’s immigration enforcement activities.52 The Department has teams in EU countries which support its work to prevent unlawful entry to the UK and to tackle organised immigration crime. The Department told us the Dublin II agreement …
20
Conclusion
The Department acknowledged that these arrangements would be part of the ongoing negotiations with the EU.55 We asked whether Immigration Enforcement proposed to keep teams in EU airports after the transition period ended. The Department appeared unconcerned about any possible barriers to this, and said that it did not see …
21
Conclusion
The Department reiterated its commitment to implementing the 30 recommendations of the Windrush lessons learned review. We heard that it was making progress with the Windrush compensation scheme but was unwilling to set itself targets on the number of cases or amount of money it would deal with.58 It underlined …
22
Conclusion
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Department extended the visas of all individuals for whom it was difficult to seek visa extensions or return home. The Department told us it was unlikely to apply another blanket extension beyond the end of July 2020 and would instead look on a case-by-case basis.61 …
23
Conclusion
The Department told us that it has high hopes for its modernisation and transformation projects. However, the NAO reported that the Department agrees funding for its transformation projects on an annual basis, and their longer-term development is therefore uncertain.64 We heard that e-visas and the introduction of its Atlas programme …