THE failure of the embattled UK Border Agency (UKBA) to track and remove illegal immigrants from Britain is today damned by a House of Commons report.
It highlights how almost 2700 foreign prisoners are still awaiting deportation two years after being released from jail.
Keith Vaz, the Labour chairman of the influential Home Affairs Committee, said: "The reputation of the Home Office, and by extension, the UK Government, is being tarnished by the inability of the UKBA to fulfil its basic functions."
The committee's report, which examined the UKBA's work at the end of last year, shows:
l One-fifth of foreign prisoners – 1060 – who finished their jail terms in 2010/11 had still not been deported by last November.
l Six years after 1013 foreign nationals were released from prison without being considered for deportation, only 397 had been removed or deported.
l The original asylum backlog was not 400,000 to 450,000 as suggested but was more than 500,000 cases.
l Almost 20,000 asylum cases remained unresolved while 120,000 immigration cases were being written off as the applicant could no longer be found.
l 700,000 migrants were applying for multiple visas each year.
Mr Vaz said: "The foreign national prisoner issue and the asylum backlog were scandals which first broke six years ago.
"UKBA appears unable to focus on its key task of tracking and removing illegal immigrants, overstayers or bogus students from the country.
"The so-called 'controlled archive', the dumping ground for cases where the UKBA has lost track of the applicant, will take a further four years to clear at the current rate of resolution. This is unacceptable."
In the report, the committee says it is "deeply concerned" there are 2670 foreign prisoners living in the UK still awaiting deportation after two years.
The MPs say they recognise some of this was due to circumstances beyond the UKBA's control such as the domestic political situations in some prisoners' countries of origin.
However, they stress more could be done to address the problems of false identity and lack of documentation.
The committee, which has long suggested the UKBA's terminology and figures could at best be described as confusing and at worst misleading, accuse it of providing "inconsistent information".
It adds: "The agency must rid itself of its bunker mentality and focus on ensuring parliament and the public understands its work.
"Confusion over figures only risks suspicion the agency is attempting to mislead Parliament and the public over its performance and effectiveness.
"The only way the Home Office can allay and remove these fears is to clean up and clarify all the figures that are used in these reports."
It refers to an inconsistency at the UKBA's representation at appeals in Glasgow, where it was recorded locally at 45% but centrally at 95% for the same team.
It says: "The discrepancy between these two figures is most worrying. At best, it indicates a problem with the recording system, at worst, a deliberate manipulation of the figures. This must be reviewed and rectified."
The MPs also criticise the UKBA's refusal to recognise the term "bogus colleges" and the fact it gave advance warning of half of its college inspections.
All inspections of colleges sponsoring foreign students under tier four of the visa system should be unannounced in future, they insist.
On visas, the report questions why some 700,000 migrants were applying for multiple ones each year. Its figures were based on records showing 120,841 of the 443,841 visa applications in August and September last year were from applicants who had already applied previously.
The MPs ask whether an applicant could have "legitimate reasons for applying for three or more visas" and called for the UKBA to assess "the implications of imposing a limit on the number of times an individual can apply for a visa".
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article