US Edition Back in 2006, the then home secretary, John Reid, famously denounced the immigration service as “not fit for purpose”. A typical Whitehall restructuring followed and, armed with a new name and a new logo, the UK Border Agency (UKBA) set out to clear the backlog of about 450,000 asylum seekers. This week, the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee accused the agency of clearing the backlog by letting the vast majority stay, a policy that it said ''amounts to an amnesty’’. The chairman of the committee, Keith Vaz, concluded that the agency was “still not fit for purpose”.
Only 38,000 (9 per cent) of the 403,500 people whose cases had been processed so far had been removed; 161,000 (40 per cent) had been allowed to remain and the other 205,500 (51 per cent) were not accounted for, including about 74,500 who could simply not be traced.
It seems that we still don’t know who is entering or leaving the UK. The contractor responsible for checking people in and out of the country has been sacked for failing to meet targets, despite being paid £188 million. The system was supposed to register the movements of 95 per cent of passengers and crew by December 2010, but the Home Affairs Committee found that only 55 per cent of names were being checked by April 2011. It remains very easy to come and go without showing up in the system, which is why the border agency is unsure whether the people on the backlog are alive or dead, still in the UK, or back home.
What’s more, a new backlog of recent applicants had been building up. The committee asked the independent chief inspector of the agency to estimate the size, but he was only able to confirm that there was such a backlog. He advised the committee to ask the new head of the agency how big it was – when the new head is appointed, that is. Apparently, the acting head could not be expected to say and the committee was left making the impotent demand for a “full breakdown” in the “next tri-annual letter” from the agency.
The immigration minister, Damian Green, insists that there is “absolutely no amnesty”, presumably for the understandable reason that he does not want a new generation of asylum seekers to try their luck. And yet ministers have approved guidelines permitting caseworkers to allow applicants
to stay if they have lived here undetected for six to eight years, when previously the rule was
10 to 12 years.
When John Reid voiced his exasperation in 2006, it was easy to wander in and out of the UK without records being kept and to take a job and stay off the books. Five years later, it’s not quite so bad, but it’s still not good enough.
The cost is enormous. The committee found that housing asylum seekers costs the taxpayers £140 million a year. The hidden costs are larger still. Buying a home is increasingly beyond the reach of many young people. The arrival of newcomers from overseas is not the only reason, but it exacerbates an already bad situation. Hospital maternity units have been unable to cope with the volume of births, leading to some tragic accidents. Again, it is not solely the result of immigration, but the unplanned arrival of thousands of people of child-bearing age adds to the pressure. And especially in the South East, some schools have been overwhelmed by the unexpected arrival of children who speak little English.
Worse still, wages have been forced down for the least skilled members of society. Gordon Brown used to argue that immigration was counter-inflationary, a claim that could only mean that he welcomed the downward pressure on wages brought by allowing thousands of newcomers to enter Britain. But for people whose only chance of prosperity was to work long hours, this was a grave injustice.
Damian Green no doubt genuinely wants to gain control of our borders. But after a year in office he should have a lot more to show for his efforts.