UK immigration backlog 'tops 500,000' say MPs

Waterloo · July 18, 2013

And one task in doing that is to clear the backlog.

How they do so is another matter, but the UK would not be the first country to consider an amnesty for illegal immigrants, overstayers and similar.

As another poster pointed out yesterday,it's unlikely the present Government will declare an Amnesty,it's a big vote loser,(on top of votes lost,due to the cut backs) and coupled with another 500,000 expected Immigrants from Rumania and Bulgaria (who are already in Germany causing many problems,see todays Daily Express) then a Coalition will probably IMO not be enough,to return the present Government to power,which i'm sure they realise the shaky political position they are in!

I do not think many people would disagree with that assessment

Waterloo · July 18, 2013

Even if there was an amnesty a large proportion of the backlog lack English and other skills needed to get a job.

On the other hand it appears the migration from Eastern Europe of young skilled people is not such a bad thing.

A report published today by the Office for Budget Responsibility said an extra 140,000 migrants every year for five decades would boost employment and bolster the public finances.

http://cdn.budgetresponsibility.independent.gov.uk/2013-FSR_OBR_web.pdf

Listening to R4 yesterday it appears there is a big drive to recruit nurses from the Philippines. They are well trained with fluent English and qualify

for rapid entry to jobs here in the UK.

Out of curiosity will these nurses be allowed to bring spouses with them (if they are married) & if they decide to settle will they have to meet the £18,600 requirement to sponsor their spouse?

7by7 · July 18, 2013

Yes and no.

Those entering under the PBS can bring qualifying family, basically spouse/partner and children under 18, with them, but do not have to meet the financial requirements for family settlement. They simply have to show that they can support and accommodate themselves and their family members without recourse to public funds.

Which is one of the illogical and unfair aspects of the new financial requirements; but that's a subject for another topic.

Waterloo · July 18, 2013

Yes and no.

Those entering under the PBS can bring qualifying family, basically spouse/partner and children under 18, with them, but do not have to meet the financial requirements for family settlement. They simply have to show that they can support and accommodate themselves and their family members without recourse to public funds.

Which is one of the illogical and unfair aspects of the new financial requirements; but that's a subject for another topic.

Agreed, but thanks for the information.

MAJIC · July 18, 2013

And one task in doing that is to clear the backlog.

How they do so is another matter, but the UK would not be the first country to consider an amnesty for illegal immigrants, overstayers and similar.

As another poster pointed out yesterday,it's unlikely the present Government will declare an Amnesty,it's a big vote loser,(on top of votes lost,due to the cut backs) and coupled with another 500,000 expected Immigrants from Rumania and Bulgaria (who are already in Germany causing many problems,see todays Daily Express) then a Coalition will probably IMO not be enough,to return the present Government to power,which i'm sure they realise the shaky political position they are in!

I do not think many people would disagree with that assessment

Well let's wait and see if Teresa May the Home Secretary caves in,and declares an Amnesty to clear the so called Backlog. I suspect very little change, or non at all? at least not this side of the next Election,considering the views on Immigration of the vast majority of the UK Electorate,it would be Political suicide!

Edited July 18, 2013 by MAJIC

Jay Sata · July 18, 2013

again, pure speculation. Unless you have proof of such illegal activities.

In which case, I trust you have done your duty as a citizen and reported the criminals to the police.

Perhaps they should be targeting those who profit most..the employers.

You really must start checking your facts before you post.

Penalties for employing illegal workers

You can be fined up to £10,000 per worker for employing illegal workers.

Which is why legitimate employers always want to see proof that new employees are either British citizens or have permission to work in the UK.

The always use the trick that the worker is a visitor or he just popped in to see his friend and is cooking his lunch in the kitchen.

As for the fines it would be interesting to see how many employers have actually been hit. The Border Agency always use the words 'you could be fined'. Customs and Excise are a bit more aggressive with confiscation first and paperwork to reclaim later.

'Pure speculation'? you say. I suggest you read this..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17183171

bobrussell · July 18, 2013

There was a recent TV programme (not sure if it was Ch4 Dispatches) and they sent a reporter in as a temporary worker. Experienced staff were seen going from room to room looking for missing paperwork and apparently would be lucky to clear a single 'cold case' application in a day!

Unpopular as it may be to many on this site perhaps it is time to grant some of these old applications automatically and let recent applications take priority.

Start working backwards so most recent 'shelved' applications get processed in the normal way . Write to the very old addresses with a new form to confirm no change of status (criminal records etc) and requiring a reply. No reply, pull and cancel the application, criminal record etc reject the application otherwise grant the visa.

People that have been in limbo for years will have created a life in the UK that will be difficult (morally wrong?) to destroy and will probably be difficult to remove so don't bother.

If in doubt issue the visa and be done with it. The backlog is due to historical maladministration so get the system right for todays applicants. If paperwork is missing then it is the UKBA's fault and nigh on impossible to correct after this time.

A small dedicated group of staff could process a lot of applications in a short time.

Seems to me you are in favour of just giving up and abolishing Immigration rules in the UK altogether,and just have an open Border Policy as is already in place with the EEA!

Not at all!

If a letter goes out requiring a reply for the application to continue to be processed then a number of things happen;

1) No reply because left the country - application cancelled, comes off the list.

2) No reply but in the country - cancelled therefore if found later is an overstayer, comes off the list.

3) Reply as instructed - grant unless criminal record etc in which case reject and start deportation process. These come off the list quickly and cheaply.

Many will have been in the UK (legally) long enough to qualify on the grounds of time in the UK anyway!

The purpose is to get the list down (and get votes for the politicians) so the immigration system can start to make sense and work for the recent applicants.

It is not an amnesty but a cost effective way of not wasting 37 years processing applications without massive expenditure. Build a robust system to fairly deal with applications in a timely manner. The alternative is to keep shuffling papers from room to room until they yellow and fall apart. Practical, sensible way of dealing with a historic c=ck up!

Edited July 18, 2013 by bobrussell

Waterloo · July 18, 2013

There was a recent TV programme (not sure if it was Ch4 Dispatches) and they sent a reporter in as a temporary worker. Experienced staff were seen going from room to room looking for missing paperwork and apparently would be lucky to clear a single 'cold case' application in a day!

Unpopular as it may be to many on this site perhaps it is time to grant some of these old applications automatically and let recent applications take priority.

Start working backwards so most recent 'shelved' applications get processed in the normal way . Write to the very old addresses with a new form to confirm no change of status (criminal records etc) and requiring a reply. No reply, pull and cancel the application, criminal record etc reject the application otherwise grant the visa.

People that have been in limbo for years will have created a life in the UK that will be difficult (morally wrong?) to destroy and will probably be difficult to remove so don't bother.

If in doubt issue the visa and be done with it. The backlog is due to historical maladministration so get the system right for todays applicants. If paperwork is missing then it is the UKBA's fault and nigh on impossible to correct after this time.

A small dedicated group of staff could process a lot of applications in a short time.

Seems to me you are in favour of just giving up and abolishing Immigration rules in the UK altogether,and just have an open Border Policy as is already in place with the EEA!

Not at all!

If a letter goes out requiring a reply for the application to continue to be processed then a number of things happen;

1) No reply because left the country - application cancelled, comes off the list.

2) No reply but in the country - cancelled therefore if found later is an overstayer, comes off the list.

3) Reply as instructed - grant unless criminal record etc in which case reject and start deportation process. These come off the list quickly and cheaply.

Many will have been in the UK (legally) long enough to qualify on the grounds of time in the UK anyway!

The purpose is to get the list down (and get votes for the politicians) so the immigration system can start to make sense and work for the recent applicants.

It is not an amnesty but a cost effective way of not wasting 37 years processing applications without massive expenditure. Build a robust system to fairly deal with applications in a timely manner. The alternative is to keep shuffling papers from room to room until they yellow and fall apart. Practical, sensible way of dealing with a historic c=ck up!

+1 and back on subject

I do see one problem with this bob considering the length of time that has elapsed some people will have moved on, what then?

Edited July 18, 2013 by Waterloo

theoldgit · July 18, 2013

OK guys, back on topic now please.

Kevin1908 · July 18, 2013

OK, Kevin, explain why the, at the time, IND staff would want to deliberately delay your wife's application?

As said, my wife's was dealt with in three months; with Christmas and the New Year holidays in the middle!

Council tax demand - soley in my name. Didn't show that she lived there.

Tax return for wife. - The fact that she didn't have an ILR visa so couldn't work didn't seem to matter.

Bank Statements - The banks had consistantly refused to give her a bank account as she had not been in the country for 3 years.

The council tax demand showed that you lived there, and a combination of documents addressed to you individually is acceptable if you can't provide sufficient addressed to you jointly. Also, not difficult to have added her name to the council tax demand; you just have to ask!

She could work before ILR. We didn't have enough documents addressed to us jointly, and two of the documents addressed to my wife we used were the letter offering her employment and her P60.

My wife had the same problem with the bank, so we opened a joint account.

Not difficult, with a little bit of research and pre planning.

Apols; I misunderstood your point about the unions saying that the governments reduction in resources would increase the workload. If you had originally included the word 'saying' I wouldn't have.

My bank who I have been with for over 25 years and who the mortgage were with refused to open a joint account.

Since she was in the country on a tourist visa then we married then she was not entitled to work.

My mistake this was not the ILR. This was the application to stay as my wife having married in the UK. She was applying for the 1 year visa then the ILR was 1 year later.

Call me old fashioned but since the council tax and rates before were in my name for 20 odd years and I was paying it I saw no need to change the name.

It was the Home Office who was asking for this as evidense, I wasn't offering it.

Everything that was supplied was through an Immigration solicitor. I just provided what he asked for. Not down to me if it was wrong.

Somtamme · July 18, 2013

@theoldgit

Yes you are correct that the agency was not free from interference from Parliament, but in the scrapping of its arm length status did remove a degree of freedom which non-govt departmental bodies enjoy. In the creation of the Home Affairs Committee (HAC) through standing order 152 makes the HAC legally responsible for the immigration service and not as previously, the board of UKBA.

But what you did not mention and is worth putting forward, is that with this new legal status of the HAC of examining the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Home Office and its associated public bodies what difference will this make? Will their recommendations as submitted in their inquiries fix the problem and more critically are they competent?

At the end of an inquiry the Committee will usually produce a report setting out its findings and making recommendations to the Government. The Government must respond to each of the report’s recommendations not within two to three months as you suggest but within two months.

In their latest report the HAC appear to have already missed one trick, whereby they appear to suggest that they will be monitoring Capita's performance in tackling the migration refusal pool of 181,541 cases (such as refused leave to remain cases). This according to the HAC report had increased by 12% since the start of the year!

The HAC appear to be suggesting this may be a problem caused by the inability to check applicants as soon as they are refused. I'm not convinced, as this may have more to do with apathy on the part of enforcement officers combined with cessation of embarkation checks or absence of fines for overstay, or it may have something more embedded like finding out what Capita are actually doing - is it merely a letter; or more fundamental such as whether the HAC have made adequate and sufficient enquiries and are members competent (what qualifications / training do HAC members have)?

The HAC recommendations may also be of interest to some on this forum following the closure of full right of appeal for family visit visa. The HAC recommend (no. 29) to make agency refusal notices more clear, in that if the refusal is due to missing documentation, that the applicant should be asked to provide this as part of the same application. The HAC thinks this should reduce both the time it would take for the applicant to get a decision and the resources spent on appeals. The HAC adds that it will be choosing to look at the entry clearance operation, as the focus of their next report.

Waterloo · July 19, 2013

In their latest report the HAC appear to have already missed one trick, whereby they appear to suggest that they will be monitoring Capita's performance in tackling the migration refusal pool of 181,541 cases (such as refused leave to remain cases). This according to the HAC report had increased by 12% since the start of the year!
Can you explain more?

Jay Sata, it can be found in the Home Affairs Committee (HAC) report no. 14; The Work of the UKBA July - Sept 2012;

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/home-affairs-committee/inquiries/parliament-2010/the-work-of-the-uk-border-agency-and-border-force/

There is also a more recent report for the period Oct-Dec 2012, which shows there was a further 5% increase in the migration refusal pool for this later Q4 period. I haven't read this more recent 4th report as yet, but if the refusal cases are increasing to such an extent does appear slightly worrying. It is worth mentioning the Q3 and Q4 periods are following the the new income / savings criteria.

In the 14th report it sho

Cheers for that Somtamme I will have a look

theoldgit · July 20, 2013

Numerous off topic posts removed.

This thread is about the casework backlog, nothing else.

bobrussell · July 20, 2013

It should also be noted that the UKBA informed parliament that on average it takes 45 minutes to process each application. £1000 an hour is pretty good in anyone's eyes so there really is little excuse for this situation having arisen and none for it continuing. Appalling management, greedy government and political interference.

You can pay a lot of agency staff for that money but as so many of these applications are so old that it seems pretty pointless to keep them on the books any longer.

There is no place for talk of amnesties and illegal immigration. These poor people are here legally (pending a decision), have paid their fees and have faced the consequences of a failed and deceitful area of government.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmhaff/792/79207.htm

Makes depressing reading!

Edited July 20, 2013 by bobrussell

Kevin1908 · July 22, 2013

It should also be noted that the UKBA informed parliament that on average it takes 45 minutes to process each application. £1000 an hour is pretty good in anyone's eyes so there really is little excuse for this situation having arisen and none for it continuing. Appalling management, greedy government and political interference.

You can pay a lot of agency staff for that money but as so many of these applications are so old that it seems pretty pointless to keep them on the books any longer.

There is no place for talk of amnesties and illegal immigration. These poor people are here legally (pending a decision), have paid their fees and have faced the consequences of a failed and deceitful area of government.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmhaff/792/79207.htm

Makes depressing reading!

Something doesn't add up here or my maths is rubbish. I gave them the benfit of the doubt and assumed 1 hour for each application then completing 6 per day allowing for admin time, chit chat, what was on tv etc and 4 weeks leave per year. To clear the back log in 37 years the they only have 10 people working on this.

7by7 · July 22, 2013

Which is where we came in:

under resourced,
under staffed,
under paid,
demoralised staff.

Waterloo · July 22, 2013

It should also be noted that the UKBA informed parliament that on average it takes 45 minutes to process each application. £1000 an hour is pretty good in anyone's eyes so there really is little excuse for this situation having arisen and none for it continuing. Appalling management, greedy government and political interference.

You can pay a lot of agency staff for that money but as so many of these applications are so old that it seems pretty pointless to keep them on the books any longer.

There is no place for talk of amnesties and illegal immigration. These poor people are here legally (pending a decision), have paid their fees and have faced the consequences of a failed and deceitful area of government.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmhaff/792/79207.htm

Makes depressing reading!

As you say depressing and the bit I found most depressing was Ms Homers promotion in the HMRC.

Waterloo · July 22, 2013

It should also be noted that the UKBA informed parliament that on average it takes 45 minutes to process each application. £1000 an hour is pretty good in anyone's eyes so there really is little excuse for this situation having arisen and none for it continuing. Appalling management, greedy government and political interference.

You can pay a lot of agency staff for that money but as so many of these applications are so old that it seems pretty pointless to keep them on the books any longer.

There is no place for talk of amnesties and illegal immigration. These poor people are here legally (pending a decision), have paid their fees and have faced the consequences of a failed and deceitful area of government.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmhaff/792/79207.htm

Makes depressing reading!

Something doesn't add up here or my maths is rubbish. I gave them the benfit of the doubt and assumed 1 hour for each application then completing 6 per day allowing for admin time, chit chat, what was on tv etc and 4 weeks leave per year. To clear the back log in 37 years the they only have 10 people working on this.

Just done some quick back of an envelope calculations & came up with the same conclusion!

Waterloo · July 22, 2013

Which is where we came in:

under resourced,

under staffed,

under paid,

demoralised staff.

the facts do appear to support this position.

Kevin1908 · July 22, 2013

Which is where we came in:

under resourced,

under staffed,

under paid,

demoralised staff.

the facts do appear to support this position.

Let's say £50000 per year including overheads for each member of the Border Agency dealing with this that is £1 per year per person in the back log. That sums up the importance that the Government is giving this.

bobrussell · July 22, 2013

I suspect the 45 minutes is for recent applications where all the paperwork is in one place. This is not the case for the backlog applications. I suspect the paperwork is all over the place and on the recent TV programme it seemed that it was taking over a day to process a single application (and it was not clear if the application got completed at all!).

Shows that when you put a new application in (and pay the extortionate fee) that there is no excuse for a four to six month wait for the result!

Somtamme · July 22, 2013

Which is where we came in:

under resourced,

under staffed,

under paid,

demoralised staff.

Agree, it's not the fault of UKBA staff but rather the system in place or more to point lack of one. The Home Affairs Committee agree too, that the 'Home Office should work to reveal the full scale of the immigration backlog so that it is able to apportion the funds necessary to clear the backlog' (Paragraph 16, 4th report).

Jay Sata · July 22, 2013

They have these vans driving around now.

The advert, leaflets carrying the same message will be left in newsagents, money transfer shops and internet cafes migrants are known to go to, and adverts placed in local newspapers.

Two vans will be driven around Hounslow, Barking & Dagenham, Ealing, Barnet, Brent and Redbridge this week showing the advert and displaying figures on how many illegal migrants have been arrested recently in each area.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2373625/Is-ridiculous-Home-Office-stunt-Vans-encourage-illegal-immigrants-send-texts-free-advice-getting-home.html

Edited July 22, 2013 by Jay Sata

theoldgit · July 23, 2013

Sign In

UK immigration backlog 'tops 500,000' say MPs

Recommended Posts

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Recently Browsing 0 members

Announcements

Topics

Latest posts...

Popular in The Pub

ASEANNOW

MORE INFO

POPULAR AREAS

CONTACT US