The New Asylum Model, introduced by the Home Office in 2006 to achieve faster conclusions to asylum applications, has strengthened aspects of the asylum process. The case ownership approach, in which a single individual manages an application from start to finish, has created a strong incentive to conclude cases and applications are being concluded more quickly, and there are also signs that the quality of decision-making is improving. But the new process is not yet working to its optimum efficiency and effectiveness. The UK Border Agency has done well to improve its handling of the casework. There was a rise in the proportion of cases being dealt with within six months, peaking above the target of 40 per cent in December 2007. The backlog of decisions to be made has however more than doubled in over a year, to 8,700 in the second quarter of 2008. At the point of application, the full screening interview is not taking place in a quarter of cases, so that key information about claims could be being missed. A separate process has been established to clear, by 2011, the backlog of 'legacy cases', unresolved before the introduction of the New Asylum Model, which is put at some 335,000 cases. The Agency has made inroads but the target looks challenging. Few removals of failed applicants are being achieved, hampered by a lack of detention space and problems obtaining emergency travel documents. Throughout the second half of 2007, the gap between unfounded applications and removals increased. The Agency missed its 'tipping point' objective, which is to remove more failed asylum applicants than the number who make new unfounded applications. Unfounded applications exceeded removals by over 20 per cent.

The Chief Inspector was commissioned by the Home Secretary to investigate and report on the level of checks operated at ports of entry to the UK. This followed the disclosure that some checks may have been suspended without the approval of ministers and the subsequent suspension of the then Head of Border Force. The investigation focused particularly on: the Home Office Warnings Index (WI) - used to ascertain whether passengers are of interest to the government agencies; Secure ID - checks passengers' fingerprints at immigration controls against those provided in the visa application process; and the risk-based measures that formed part of the level 2 pilot - where it was no longer routine to open the biometric chip within EEA passports or perform WI checks of EEA children travelling in obvious family or school groups. The number of occasions when checks were suspended depended on the volume of passengers, the level of risk they presented, staff available and the infrastructure of the ports. Overall, the Chief Inspector found poor communication, poor managerial oversight and a lack of clarity about roles and responsibilities.There was no single framework setting out all potential border security checks, which of these could be suspended, in what circumstances and the level of authority required at Agency or Ministerial level to do so. The Agency now has a stronger grip on checks, but a new framework of security checks is urgently needed, unambiguously specifying checks that must always be carried out and those where there is discretion to suspend.

The Committee is pleased to note that the Home Office (the Department) has responded positively to recommendations made in a previous report (34th report, HC 620, session 2005-06, ISBN 9780215027795). The Department has implemented the New Asylum Model, whereby a case owner manages all new asylum cases from application to conclusion, at which stage the applicant is either allowed to stay in the UK or returned to their country of origin. The Department has also established a separate process to clear the backlog of 400,000-450,000 legacy cases unresolved at the introduction of the New Asylum Model. The New Asylum Model has resulted in the Department reaching an initial decision more quickly and in cases being concluded faster than in 2006. Legacy cases will be cleared by 2011. Amongst the many cases awaiting completion, there are undoubtedly many people who genuinely need humanitarian protection because they are fleeing oppression, as well as those with more tenuous claims to asylum. The Department still faces significant challenges, however, in bringing these cases to a prompt conclusion. Faster, more accurate completion of cases reduces both uncertainty for the applicant and the cost to the tax payer. Removal poses a challenge. It will be another four years before the Department has the total of 4,000 detention spaces that it needs to increase removals to optimum levels, and before its new IT system is fully operational. The Department also needs to work with the Courts, foreign governments and other bodies to bring about the legal changes and diplomatic solutions needed to resolve obstacles to removal that lie outside its control.

This book analyses the practice of virginity testing endured by South Asian women who wished to enter Britain between the late 1960s and the early 1980s, and places this practice into a wider historical context. Using recently opened government documents the extent to which these women were interrogated and scrutinized at the border is uncovered.

In this Home Affairs Committee's report into the Work of the UK Border Agency, it criticises the Agency for failing to deport more than 600 foreign national prisoners who were released between 1999 and 2006 and are still in the country and for failing to clear the "controlled archive" of lost applicants. At the current rate it will take a further 4 years to close all cases. The Committee found that the Agency has still not resolved all of the asylum 'legacy' cases first identified in 2006. Instead, there are 17,000 ongoing cases still awaiting a final decision and the Agency appears to be discovering more cases. The Committee remains uncertain over the feasibility of the Government's e-borders timetable. It finds it difficult to see how the scheme can be applied to all rail and sea passengers by December 2014. It acknowledges that the Government must have a comprehensive e-border system if it is to be effective. However, it needs clarity on policy and practicalities for achieving this. The Committee makes a series of specific recommendations aimed at improving the working of the Agency, concerning: appeals, bogus colleges, data provided and use of statistics. It calls on the Home Office to act immediately to deal with the public scepticism over the effectiveness of the UK Border Agency and to require clarity in the information produced for both the public and Parliament.

Europe is currently experiencing a migration crisis, demonstrated by millions of displaced people unseen since World War II. This book examines the interface between extraterritorial border and migration controls taken by EU member states, and the rights asylum seekers acquire from EU law.Control measures such as the enforcement of visas, fines on carriers transporting unsatisfactorily documented migrants, and interception at sea are investigated in detail in an effort to assess the impact these measures have on access to asylum in the EU. The book also explores the rights recognisedby the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights to persons in need of international protection, inclusive of the principle of non-removal to a place of persecution, the prohibition of ill-treatment, the right to asylum, and the right to effective judicial protection.The fundamental focus of the book is the relationship between the aforementioned border and migration controls and the rights of asylum seekers, and importantly, how these rights limit the nature of such control measures and the ways in which they are implemented. The ultimate goal of the book is toconclude whether the current series of extraterritorial mechanisms or pre-entry vetting is compatible in EU law with the rights of refugees and forced migrants.

White Paper