Report: The work of the UK Border Agency (Oct-Dec 2012) (PDF) · The work of the UK Border Agency (October December 2012) 1 Contents Report Page 1 Introduction 3 2 The abolition of

HC 486 [Incorporating HC 924, 2012–13]

Published on 13 July 2013 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited

House of Commons

Home Affairs Committee

The work of the UK Border Agency (October–December 2012)

Fourth Report of Session 2013–14

Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence

Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 10 July 2013

£13.50

Home Affairs Committee

The Home Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Home Office and its associated public bodies.

Current membership

Rt Hon Keith Vaz MP (Labour, Leicester East) (Chair) Nicola Blackwood MP (Conservative, Oxford West and Abingdon) James Clappison MP (Conservative, Hertsmere) Michael Ellis MP (Conservative, Northampton North) Lorraine Fullbrook MP (Conservative, South Ribble) Dr Julian Huppert MP (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge) Steve McCabe MP (Labour, Birmingham Selly Oak) Bridget Phillipson MP (Labour, Houghton and Sunderland South) Mark Reckless MP (Conservative, Rochester and Strood) Chris Ruane MP (Labour, Vale of Clwyd) Mr David Winnick MP (Labour, Walsall North) The following Members were also members of the Committee during the Parliament: Rt Hon Alun Michael MP (Labour & Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth) Karl Turner MP (Labour, Kingston upon Hull East)

Powers

The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk.

Publication

The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at www.parliament.uk/homeaffairscom. Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Tom Healey (Clerk), Robert Cope (Second Clerk), Eleanor Scarnell (Committee Specialist), Andy Boyd (Senior Committee Assistant), Michelle Garratty (Committee Assistant), Iwona Hankin (Committee Support Officer) and Alex Paterson (Select Committee Media Officer).

Contacts

All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Home Affairs Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 3276; the Committee’s email address is [email protected].

The work of the UK Border Agency (October–December 2012) 1

Contents

Report Page

1 Introduction 3

2 The abolition of the UKBA 3

3 Entry clearance operations 7 Regional performance 8 Risk and Airline Liaison Network (RALON) 9 Visa Application Centres 9 Entry clearance in the Gulf: conclusions 10

4 Key indicators of the Agency’s performance 11 Ex-Foreign National Offenders 12

Ex-FNOS released without being considered for deportation 12 Ex-FNOs living in the community 12 Key issue: tackling the backlog of ex-FNOs living in the community 13

Asylum and immigration backlog: live casework 13 Asylum backlog 13 Immigration backlog 13 Key issue: prioritising the conclusion of legacy casework 13

New asylum cases 14 Initial decisions and conclusions 14 Applicants previously removed from the UK 14 Key issue: a growing backlog of cases pending an initial decision for more than 6 months 14

Immigration 15 Number of visas issued and grants for settlement 15 Processing of in-country immigration cases 15 Processing of out of country immigration cases 15 Key issue: backlog of in-country immigration applications 15

Immigration detention 17 Rule 35 reports 17 Child detention 17

Appeals and tribunals 18 Appeals Improvement Plan: progress against targets 18

Sponsors and licensing 18 New sponsor applications 18 Follow up visits 18

Departmental information and cooperation with Parliament 19 Departmental information 19 Cooperation with Parliament 19

Border Agency Backlogs 20

Conclusions and recommendations 21

2 The work of the UK Border Agency (October–December 2012)

Annex I: Home Affairs Committee Reports on the UK Border Agency 25

Annex II: Immigration Enforcement Directorate Organogram 26

Annex III: Abu Dhabi Entry Clearance Structure Oct–Dec 2012 27

Formal Minutes 28

Witnesses 29

List of printed written evidence 29

List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament 30


1 Introduction 1. This is the Committee’s final Report on the work of the UK Border Agency in 2012, covering the period from October to December. The Report is divided into three main parts, covering the decision to abolish the Agency from April 2013 (Chapter 2), the entry clearance operation which we observed during our visit to Dubai and Abu Dhabi in March 2013 (Chapter 3), and the key indicators of the Agency’s performance during the three-month period in question (Chapter 4). The latter section follows, insofar as is possible, the format of our Report on the Agency’s performance from July to September 2013, for ease of comparison.

2 The abolition of the UKBA 2. On 23 May 2006, the new Home Secretary, Rt Hon John Reid MP, told our predecessor Committee:

I want to be straight with the Committee today and honest with you because I believe that [...] in the wake of the problems of mass migration that we have been facing our system is not fit for purpose. It is inadequate in terms of its scope; it is inadequate in terms of its information technology, leadership, management, systems and processes.1

Conscious, perhaps, of the fact that his predecessor, Charles Clarke, had resigned only a month beforehand over the Home Office’s failure to deport foreign national offenders, the Home Secretary did not mince his words. He described the frustration of working with a paper-based system from “another age”, when the necessary technology-based system “seems to be on an horizon that never gets any nearer”. He said that he had initiated an audit of performance, weak services, leaderships and skills, and fragmentation in silos across the Department. He said that the Department was not “intrinsically dysfunctional, in the sense that it is incapable of being led in a coherent fashion” but that there were serious weaknesses in its management structures and information flows.2

3. The outcome was the establishment of the UK Border Agency, which attained full agency status in 2009, following the statutory transfer of the border functions of HM Revenue and Customs to the Secretary of State, which allowed immigration and customs functions to be merged at the border.3 However, the establishment of the Agency did not prove to be the panacea that Dr Reid might have hoped. It continued to perform poorly in several areas, such as tackling the asylum and immigration backlog, and dealing with foreign national offenders when they are released from prison, and processing in-country

1 Home Affairs Committee, Fifth Report of Session 2005–06, Immigration Control, HC 775-III (Oral and additional written

evidence), Q 866

2 Ibid,. QQ 866–967

3 Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009


visa renewals.4 It is not just this Committee which has been critical of the Agency: John Vine CBE QPM, the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, has frequently highlighted problems with the Agency, as has the Parliamentary Ombudsman, who noted that almost two-thirds of complaints that had to be sent back to organisations in 2011–12 were about the Agency.5

4. In November 2011, it emerged that differences of understanding between Ministers and senior UKBA officials about the precise scope of a pilot of risk-led border controls had led to some passport checks being waived without Ministerial approval. In response to this, the Home Secretary announced the creation of a new Border Force, taking the border control function out of the UKBA.6 Whereas this remedy was presented as addressing specific problems with entry checks at the border, the episode called into question the whole issue of management and Ministerial oversight of the Agency.7

5. It was following the publication of our last Report on the Agency that matters came to a head. HM Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration had found that this Committee had consistently been supplied with misleading information about the immigration and asylum backlogs.8 Mr Vine’s oral evidence to us was remarkably consistent with Dr Reid’s evidence to our predecessors six years previously—there was a lack of transparency and “shockingly poor” customer service, and the Agency was divided into isolated “silos”. He declined to say, when prompted, that the Agency was fit for purpose.9 However, it does demonstrate how little changes in these matters, whichever government is in office.

6. The day after our Report was published, the Home Secretary announced that the UK Border Agency was to be abolished. She told the House that

the performance of what remains of UKBA is still not good enough. The Agency struggles with the volume of its casework, which has led to historical backlogs running into the hundreds of thousands; the number of illegal immigrants removed does not keep up with the number of people who are here illegally; and while the visa operation is internationally competitive, it could and should get better still. The Select Committee on Home Affairs has published many critical reports about UKBA’s performance. As I have said to the House before, the agency has been a troubled organisation since it was formed in 2008, and its performance is not good enough.10

7. We took evidence immediately after the statement from Mark Sedwill, the new Home Office Permanent Secretary; Rob Whiteman, the Agency’s Chief Executive; and Simon

4 A list of the Committee’s 14 Reports on the UK Border Agency from its inception to its abolition is annexed to this

Report.

5 Responsive and Accountable? The Ombudsman’s review of complaint handling by government departments and public organisations 2011–12 (HC 799, Session 2012–13), p. 20

6 HC Deb, 7 November 2011, col. 44

7 See Home Affairs Committee, Seventeenth Report of Session 2010-12, UK Border Controls, HC 1647

8 See, for example, An inspection of the UK Border Agency’s handling of legacy asylum and migration cases (HMCIBI, November 2012)

9 Home Affairs Committee, Fourteenth Report of Session 2012–13 The work of the UK Border Agency (July–September 2012), HC 792, Ev 1–7.

10 HC Deb, 26 March 2013, col. 1500


Hayes, acting Head of its International Directorate. Mr Sedwill was realistic about the limited extent to which a change of governance arrangements would, in and of itself, raise performance. Rather, it was a way of establishing the “right platform” to tackle the long-standing performance problems.11 They were rather vague about the way in which the decision to abolish the Agency had been arrived at but insisted that the decision to abolish it had been carefully planned over some time. However, we note that just five days before the announcement was made, there was a Written Ministerial Statement from the Immigration Minister, which stated

I am confident that these measures represent the start of a period of further improvement that will leave the UK Border Agency on the sure footing necessary to continue to deliver a safe and efficient immigration system.12

We also note that the Independent Inspector does not seem to have been given advance warning of this major change.13

8. The intention behind the move is to provide closer Ministerial oversight of the Agency, but also to further divide its functions into two separate units: a high-volume, customer-focused immigration service that makes high-quality decisions about who comes here, with a culture of customer satisfaction for business-people and visitors who want to come here legally; and an organisation that has law enforcement at its heart and deals robustly with those who break our immigration laws.

9. Of the division of functions, the Home Secretary made clear to the House that the organisation had suffered from a lack of accountability to Ministers

Two smaller entities will also mean greater transparency and accountability, and that brings me to the second change I intend to make. UKBA was given agency status in order to keep its work at an arm’s length from Ministers—that was wrong. It created a closed, secretive and defensive culture. So I can tell the House that the new entities will not have agency status and will sit in the Home Office, reporting to Ministers.

10. This came as no surprise to the Committee who had regularly uncovered evidence of backlogs and other information being withheld deliberately from our oversight since 2006. The ‘Q3 Report Into the work of the UK Border Agency (July-Sept 2012)’, published on the 25 March 2013, one day before the abolition of the Agency, made a number of recommendations aimed at improving accountability and transparency in the organisation and in particular welcomed the establishment of the Performance and Compliance Unit to improve reliability of data.

11. However, the Committee are concerned about the length of time it has taken to establish this unit. We are yet to receive any information about the strategic aims, objectives and outcomes of the unit, nor timescales for its delivery. If the Home Office are to improve transparency as outlined by the Home Secretary, then the creation of this unit

11 Q 19

12 HC Deb, 21 March 2013, cols. 55–56WS

13 QQ 21ff


must be a priority. The Home Office must outline when it expects this unit to be operational and describe its core functions.

12. The original functions of the UK Border Agency are now divided between four Home office units:

a) Border Force, a law enforcement command within the Home Office which carries out immigration and customs controls for people and goods entering the UK;14

b) UK Visas and Immigration, handling migration casework and customer contact,

visas, asylum casework, appeals, and business, growth and premium services;

c) Immigration Enforcement, which deals with removals and detention, operational intelligence, foreign national offenders and immigration crime; and

d) Operational Systems Transformation, which is responsible for modernising

immigration technology; identity and data integrity; performance, assurance and compliance; business strategy, analysis, design and change; strategic risks and analysis; external engagement on growth; and joint working across the immigration system.15

13. The division of the Agency as was into four separate units has raised concerns about the appropriateness of the salary scale for the senior directors. The remuneration bill for senior directors has quadrupled to an estimated £700,000. The Committee is concerned about the role of Rob Whiteman. The organisation he was in charge of has been reduced in size by 75% in just over a year, yet his salary still remains at £175,000 per annum. It should be borne in mind that this is £32,500 more than the Prime Minister’s salary.16 The Home Office must clarify what Mr Whiteman’s new roles and responsibilities are.

14. As the Home Secretary made her announcement, the Permanent Secretary Mark Sedwill sent a message to staff reassuring them that: “Most of us will still be doing the same job in the same place with the same colleagues for the same boss”.17 The Committee was surprised at Mr Sedwill’s admission and struggle to see how the new organisation is to tackle the ‘closed, secretive and defensive culture’ if it is made up of the same people as before.

15. During evidence to the Committee on the 11 June 2013 Sarah Rapson, Interim Director General of UK Visas and Immigration, was asked what changes to personnel had been made since her appointment on the 18 April 2013. She said that there were: “No new people apart from my private office [...] I am currently talking both with Ministers and the Permanent Secretary about the arrangements for my top team”.

14 https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/border-force

15 Home Affairs Committee, The work of the UK Visas and Immigration Section, HC 232-i, Letter from Mark Harper MP, Minister for Immigration, dated 6 June 2013.

16 The Prime Minister’s combined Ministerial and Parliamentary salary was £142,500 at 1 April 2013. See House of Commons Library Research Paper 13/33, Members’ pay and expenses – current rates from 1 April 2013, p. 19

17 QQ 68–71


16. The Committee were deeply concerned by this admission. If we are to see a shift in culture the new organisational structure and management must be complemented by the ability for a wholesale restructuring of the employees of the organisation. The newly appointed Directors General must have the ability and resources necessary to implement this change. The Home Office should outline exactly how they propose to bring about this change in culture. It is currently unclear how they plan to address this issue. In her evidence to the Committee on 11th June 2013 Sarah Rapson when asked if she thought the Immigration Service would ever be fixed she said

Is it ever going to be fixed? I think I answered that question from you earlier. I don’t think so.

The Committee were surprised by this revelation. Although we welcome Ms Rapson’s honesty, the Committee are concerned that the person tasked with ‘fixing’ the agency does not think the job will ever be complete. We are concerned this is an admission that Ms Rapson does not have the resources necessary to ‘fix’ the service. The Home Office should work to reveal the full scale of the backlog so that it is able to apportion the funds necessary to clear the backlog.

17. The UK Border Agency had a troubled history. Many of its problems predate the establishment of the Agency. Ministers must now explain how those problems will not outlive its demise. Establishing the UK Border Agency as an executive agency did not resolve the problems experienced by the old Home Office Immigration and Nationality Directorate and there is no reason to suppose that re-integrating those functions back into the Home Office will do so either. Further, significant change, to management structures, information sharing, processes and IT systems will be required if the Home Office is to succeed in raising the standard of its borders and immigration work.

3 Entry clearance operations 18. Since 2007, the UK Border Agency has been operating a “hub and spoke” model for overseas visa applications. The world is divided into six regions,18 each of which has a number of visa applications centres (spokes), where visa applications are received, and a smaller number of decision-making centres (hubs). So, for example, in North America, there is a single decision-making hub in New York, which receives applications from biometric enrolment centres throughout the USA, run by the Department of Homeland Security, as well as six application centres in Canada run by commercial partners.

19. This arrangement is intended to improve the quality and consistency of decision-making, by processing applications in larger centres with more specialist staff, to improve efficiency by benefiting from economies of scale, and to improve resilience and flexibility by locating hubs in more secure and stable environments. We visited the visa-processing hub in Abu Dhabi and its “spoke” visa application centre in Dubai

20. The Agency operates in a total of 358 locations in 137 countries and overseas territories, using a mixture of commercially outsourced facilities and UKBA-run

18 Africa, Americas, Asia-Pacific, Euro-Med, South Asia, and Pakistan, and the Gulf


operations. The Agency employs around 1,700 staff (including locally-engaged staff employed directly by the Embassy, High Commission or Consulate) and processes 2.6 million visa applications each year.

21. We visited the visa processing hub in Abu Dhabi—the largest UK visa section in the world—and its local visa application centre spoke in Dubai, which is run by VFS Global. The Gulf Iran and Pakistan region covers Bahrain, Iran, Kuwait, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Yemen, employing approximately 295 staff. Of these, 166 staff work in the Abu Dhabi office (34 UK based, 132 Locally Engaged); 6 staff are employed in the UKBA Dubai office (3 UK based, 3 Locally Engaged) where their main focus is interdiction at Dubai Airport. We were told that the UKBA total number of staff working at the British Embassy site in Abu Dhabi was around 400, making it the fourth largest UK Government overseas team.

22. Abu Dhabi processes work from the UAE and Bahrain, and also deals with the majority of the non-settlement work from Pakistan. It is also the designated post for the submission of applications from Yemeni and Iranian nationals following the closure of visa sections there.

Regional performance

23. The UK Border Agency told us that this is a diverse and high risk region, active in interviewing, upstream disruption, tackling criminality, and supporting the prosperity agenda. A joint audit of the whole Mission was delivered by Internal Audit Directorate (IAD) and The National Audit Office (NAO) who visited Abu Dhabi in September 2012 to complete an audit of the business processes in place. A second one-day audit by the NAO was delivered in October 2012 on the specific business area handling appeals decisions in preparation for a pilot project to speed the transfer of appeals bundles between Abu Dhabi and the UK. The recommendations from both audits have been implemented to remove some elements of double handling and increase productivity. The appeals pilot has been ongoing since October 2012, using a bespoke document courier service to and from Abu Dhabi which is quicker than using the Diplomatic Bag. Emerging findings are positive and it is likely that the pilot will be extended to further test the benefits.

24. The region has undertaken a significant amount of work to address the high numbers of Pakistan asylum claims which it describes as “abusive” linked to visa applications. The Agency suggested that it was possible that the decrease in asylum claims linked to family visit visas could be attributed to improved decision quality, increased work on questionable sponsors, the sponsor match database and improved work on appeals. There is an emphasis on cross-agency co-operation to improve customer service.

25. We had a meeting in Abu Dhabi with staff who were working towards delivering Customer Service Excellence accreditation.19 The Abu Dhabi office is at the forefront of this work within the Border Agency. They are in the final stages of seeking CSE accreditation, and full assessment will shortly take place, having been delayed from 24 February due to problems with the assessor’s availability.

19 The successor to the Charter Mark.


Risk and Airline Liaison Network (RALON)

26. RALON officers in the UAE work with airlines to identify inadequately documented passengers at Abu Dhabi and Dubai Airports and prevent them from reaching the UK. Working with carriers, UKBA have been directly involved in preventing inadequately documented passengers reaching the UK, a significant proportion of which are harm cases. Significant intelligence and debriefing is conducted within the constraints of the liaison officer role.

27. UKBA has a longstanding engagement with the UAE authorities specifically Dubai Immigration based around the positioning of successive Immigration Liaison Managers/Airline Liaison Officers in Dubai since 1999. Dubai airport is of particular importance, given that tourism makes up 28% of the UAE’s economy, and it is predicted to overtake Heathrow

• The airport is critical to the aviation/tourism sector which makes up 28% of the UAE’s economy, and creates 19% of employment (250,000 jobs); Dubai Airport provided US$1bn in dividend to the Dubai Ministry of Finance last year.

• Passenger arrivals are forecast to increase about 15% every year, reaching 90 million in 2018, up from 60 million now (Heathrow, at 68 million, will be overtaken in 2014).

Visa Application Centres

28. The Visa Application Centre in Dubai is one of nine in the region operated by VFS Global. Another four in Pakistan are operated by their local partner, Gerry’s, which is part of FedEx.

29. Visa applications are first submitted online, via the UK Border Agency website. On completing the online process, the applicant makes an appointment at their local VAC, to hand in supporting documents and for biometric information to be captured. Applicants then return to the VAC once the application has been processed, to receive the outcome.

30. VFS provides a range of administrative services as part of the visa application process, including a website, telephone/email enquiry service and an application tracking service. their staff are not involved in any aspect of the visa decision-making process. In addition, VFS provide a range of optional paid-for services for customers including:

a) Premium lounge service, for an extra fee of about £50. This includes access to a nicer waiting area with refreshments, a photocopying service, a courier service for the return of passports, and an SMS alert when the application has been processed. The premium service has no bearing on the way the application is processed once it has been received by the Border Agency.

b) Prime Time service, for a similar price, to enable applicants to submit applications outside normal office hours.

c) Priority Visa service, at a cost of about £100, which fast-tracks the application.


Entry clearance in the Gulf: conclusions

31. We were impressed by the entry clearance operations in the Gulf Region. As we have previously noted, the processing of out-of-country visa applications is one of the Agency’s great strengths. Processing targets are consistently met or exceeded and on the few occasions when they are missed (as with Tier 1 visas in Q4 2012), it is never by a significant margin.

32. At the heart of the entry clearance system are good and effective clearance staff and managers. Although the standard does vary an effective Entry Clearance Manager or Director can look outside the box to solve problems, see a problem immediately and ultimately cut costs. We want to recognise the excellent work of Janice Moore in Mumbai, Carole Doughty and Kevin Woods in Abu Dhabi and Mandy Ivemy in Pakistan. We were impressed by the VSF Global operation which has developed a customer friendly ‘can do’ approach. They were efficient, helpful to applicants and were a great advertisement for the UK. Since they provide face-to-face contact with the public their success reflects on the entire entry clearance operations as a whole.

33. The UK Visas and Immigration Directorate should look to the out-of-country visa processing operation as a model of good practice, to be disseminated more widely around the directorate. We recommend that the Home Office establish a programme of short- to medium-term secondments in and out of the entry clearance operation so that staff throughout the Directorate can have an opportunity to share their knowledge and skills, and senior managers can develop a better understanding of what works, and apply it to those areas of the operation where improvement is required.

34. We were struck by the extent to which the whole operation in the Gulf (as elsewhere) still relies on the physical transportation of pieces of paper. Papers submitted at the VAC in Dubai are taken by secure courier to Abu Dhabi, a motorway journey of a couple of hours. We saw the courier control room, where vehicle movements can be tracked using GPS technology. While the security arrangements are impressive, they are doubtless expensive, and the whole business of moving paper around its time-consuming. We were told that documents are also routinely photocopied and returned to the UK via the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. We understand that, when appeals are lodged, the relevant paperwork is sometimes not in the right place, which can make it difficult for the Agency to make its case. Officers in overseas entry-clearance hubs are often out of the loop when it comes to appeals involving their cases. Sometimes, they can find themselves dealing with a successful applicant, yet are unable to process the visa because they have not received the right paperwork from London, a situation which can drag on for days or weeks and result in the local Member of Parliament becoming involved when all that is required is for the Agency to act on the determination of the tribunal.

35. It is clearly necessary for passports to be transported securely, and at the RALON in Abu Dhabi we were shown examples of forged passports which underlined the need for the original document to be inspected very carefully. But there is no excuse for the continuing reliance on the distribution of information on paper. Supporting documents could perfectly well be captured electronically at the visa application centre and transmitted electronically between the VAC, the entry-clearance hub, and the Home Office in the UK.


36. The Home Office should set a target for making its entry-clearance operation paperless by the end of the next Parliament in 2020. The flow of information and documentation should be electronic from the visa application centre, through the entry-clearance operation and any appeal. The paperless system should also extend to in-country visa renewals, an area of persistently weak performance.

37. The decision letter for Refusal of Entry Clearance is an example of a poor system that must be addressed. The basis for an appeal is determined on this decision letter. If the refusal were made clearer applicants would be able to determine what additional documents were needed and would not need to contact their MP. The Home Office should remodel the refusal notice to make it more understandable to both applicants and sponsors, clearly detailing the additional documents needed for a successful application. This would considerably reduce both the amount of time spent by MPs on such cases and the level of correspondence between MPs and the Home Office. We were glad that Mr Sedwill and Ms Rapson accepted this and we see no reason why this cannot be implemented immediately. We remain surprised by how unclear much of the guidance is for applicants; even those experienced in immigration matters can easily miss details buried in the supporting documents provided. The guidance should be amended so that it is clear what information is required, and how it should be provided. We further expect that where the additional information required is relatively minor, a clear request for it to be provided could lead to a quick reconsideration, rather than starting the entire process again.

4 Key indicators of the Agency’s performance 38. The Committee assesses the Agency’s performance on a quarterly basis against a number of key indicators covering the major aspects of its work. This list is not definitive and the committee may decide, as and when new issues arise, to add further indicators:

• Foreign national offenders

• The asylum and immigration backlog: live casework

• New asylum cases

• Immigration

• Immigration detention

• Appeals and tribunals

• Sponsors and licensing

• Enforcement action

• Migration Refusal Pool

• Intelligence

• Departmental information and cooperation with Parliament


Ex-Foreign National Offenders

Ex-FNOS released without being considered for deportation

No significant change:

• 47 of the ex-FNOs released without being considered for deportation in 2006 remained untraced at the end of Q4 2012, the same as in the previous quarter.

• Four additional ex-FNOs from the 2006 cohort were removed from the UK in Q4 2012, taking the total to 409.

• Three of the 28 ex-FNOs released without being considered for deportation in 2011 remain untraced.

• One ex-FNOs was released without being considered for deportation in 2012.

Ex-FNOs living in the community

• Worse performance: 4,102 ex-FNOs were living in the community whilst awaiting deportation in Q4 2012, an increase of 122 on Q3 2012. 65% of these cases are over two years old.

Removals in this quarter

• No significant change: 362 ex-FNOs eligible for deportation were released in Q4 2012, 95% of their cases were outstanding at the end of Q4 2012. This is similar to Q3 2012 when 340 ex-FNOs were released with 95% of cases outstanding at the end of the quarter.

• Improved performance: Of the ex-FNOs whose deportation cases were outstanding, 143 were delayed because their cases were still being concluded by the UKBA. This is a fall of 32% from Q3 2012.

• Worse performance: 127 days was the average length of time it took to deport an ex-FNO in Q4 2012, an increase of 9 days from the previous quarter.

• Worse performance: There were 208 failed removals in Q4 2012, 15% of the total number of removals. This is an deterioration from Q3 2012 when there were 165 failed removals.

• No significant change: 42% of removals were carried out during the Early Release Scheme period in Q4 2012 compared with 45% in Q3 2012.

• No significant change: 36% of removals were carried out under the Facilitated Returns Scheme in Q4 2012 compared with 38% in Q3 2012.


Key issue: tackling the backlog of ex-FNOs living in the community

39. Although the Agency has continued to make slow progress in removing the 2006 cohort of foreign prisoners, we are concerned that the number of foreign national ex-offenders living in the community rose by 122 in the final quarter of 2012. The length of time taken to deport an ex-FNO has also increased by nine days. These problems must not be allowed to go unchecked.

Asylum and immigration backlog: live casework

Asylum backlog

• 33,500 backlog asylum applications were being caseworked by the Agency in Q4 2012.

• At the end of Q4 2012, 55% of all legacy asylum applications concluded to date had been granted leave to remain and 27% of applicants were removed. 17% of applications were found to be duplicates.

Immigration backlog

• 7,000 backlog migration cases were being caseworked by the Agency in Q4 2012.

• At the end of Q4 2012, 46% of all legacy migration cases concluded to date had been granted leave to remain and 33% of applicants had been removed. 21% of cases were found to be duplicates.

Key issue: prioritising the conclusion of legacy casework

40. The asylum and migration backlog is made up of “live” cases, where the Agency has established contact with people who were previously untraceable. The number of asylum and immigration backlog casework has grown steadily throughout the year, this is to be expected as the Agency began to properly implement its tracing programme in this period. When the controlled archives closed the Agency had 33,900 backlog asylum cases and 7,000 backlog immigration cases that it needs to conclude. Most of the individuals concerned will have waited many years to find out the result of their applications. We reiterate our recommendation that the Home Office must now prioritise the conclusion of their cases and work fast to give them a swift decision. As we have pointed out in evidence sessions, it would be easier to understand the nature of the very substantial backlog and legacy cases if a host of different designations were not used for the numbers involved.


New asylum cases

Initial decisions and conclusions

• Worse performance: 12,816 asylum cases were awaiting an initial decision at the end of Q4 2012 a 17% increase on the previous quarter.

• Worse performance: There was a 18% rise on the quarter in the number of asylum cases awaiting an initial decision for more than 6 months.

• No significant change 61% of asylum cases were concluded within one year in Q4, down from 64% on the previous quarter.

Applicants previously removed from the UK

• Ten individuals were removed from the UK and subsequently granted refugee status or humanitarian protection in Q4 2012. The individuals were nationals of Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq and Pakistan.

Key issue: a growing backlog of cases pending an initial decision for more than 6 months

41. We are concerned to see yet another increase this quarter in the number of asylum cases waiting more than six months for an initial decision. The time taken to process asylum applications is an issue which we are considering in more detail in our inquiry into asylum.


Immigration

Number of visas issued and grants for settlement

• There were 222,935 visas issued in 2012, a decline of 2% in the number of visas issued in 2011.

• There were 126,891 grants of settlement in 2012, a decline for 24% in the number of grants for settlement in 2011.

• There were 278,176 study visas20 issued in 2012, a decline of 14% in the number of study visas issued in 2011.

Processing of in-country immigration cases

The Agency’s targets are to process 90% of Tier 1, 2 and 5 and 85% of Tier 4 in-country postal applications within four weeks.

• New backlog: 190,000 cases in the permanent and temporary migration pool.

• New backlog: Only 10% of Tier 1 applications were processed on time in Q4 2012, a decline from 18% in the previous quarter.

• 21% of Tier 4 application were processed on time in Q4 2012, an increase from 14% in the previous quarter.

• 86% of Tier 2 and 79% of Tier 5 applications were processed on time in Q4 2012, an increase from 79% and 71% respectively in the previous quarter.

• New backlog: 61,103 in-country immigration applications had not been loaded onto the Agency’s Case Information Database (CID) at the end of Q4 2012, an increase of 4% from the previous quarter.

Processing of out of country immigration cases

• Improved performance: The Agency met its processing targets for out-of-country visa applications in all four tiers in Q4 2012. 100% of visas tiers were processed within its final 60 day target time.

Key issue: backlog of in-country immigration applications

42. We have documented the Agency's shocking level of customer service in our previous reports on its work. Although processing of applications in Tiers 2, 4 and 5 has improved in this quarter, there has been a further decline , from 18% to just 10%, in the number of Tier 1 applications processed on time. Just one in ten Tier 1 visa applications is processed

20 Study visas include student visas for main applicants and dependents plus visas for student visitors


within the Agency's service standard time. When Sarah Rapson gave evidence to us recently, she emphasised the need for UK Visas and Immigration to adopt a more customer-focused approach to its work. That is clearly something that is urgently required and we hope that the re-organisation of immigration and visa services will provide the framework in which it can happen. But nobody in the Home Office should be under any illusion that the re-organisation will in and of itself deliver service improvements.

43. On the 15 April 2013, Channel 4 broadcast an episode of Dispatches entitled ‘Immigration Undercover’, which featured undercover journalists who had infiltrated the former UK Border Agency. The programme revealed that, 18 days before the 31 March deadline to clear the family migration backlog, the UKBA had split the family applications into four categories, designated A, B, C and D. The A, B and C backlogs, each of which consisted of fewer than 10,000, relatively simple cases, were cleared. But backlog D, which consisted of 50,356 complex cases, was not cleared. We are concerned that the Home Office is using ‘backlog splitting’ to disguise the full extent of the backlog and the lack of progress made in clearing it. The Home Office must be transparent about the number of cases remaining in the backlogs. There were also other allegations of figures relating to visa applications being massaged by the Agency. The Home Office must investigate immediately to see if this is still the case.

44. We were alarmed to discover in Sarah Rapson’s evidence session a further backlog of 190,000 cases in the temporary and permanent migration pool that were never revealed to the Committee before. The total figure for the number of cases in the backlog has reached over half a million (502,462). Whilst we welcome this admission from Ms Rapson and hope she is more forthcoming with this Committee then her predecessor, it is simply unacceptable that new backlogs are routinely revealed in Committee evidence sessions.

45. Ms Rapson must make it a priority to be aware of all the backlogs that there are, and to inform us promptly of them all. If UK Visas and Immigration is truly committed to full transparency and accountability they must be upfront about the total number of cases awaiting resolution. Only when this is done will the Home Office be better able to proportion the appropriate resources to tackle this issue. In Rob Whiteman’s letter of 7 May 2013 to the Chair he said: “As at 31 December 2012 there were 85,833 cases in progress across temporary migration as well as 48,857 cases not yet put on the system to give a total of 134,690 cases in progress overall. I can confirm that as at 31 March 2012 this figure has been reduced to 105,167 cases, with the number of uninput cases at 1,073”.

46. There was no mention of the number of cases in progress across permanent migration. We are concerned that Mr Whiteman has not been as open with the Committee as he should have been. These figures show an increase of 18,261 cases in progress despite the reduction in cases waiting to be put on the system. The Committee are concerned that the organisation simply does not have enough resources to deal with the backlog of cases. The Home Office must clarify the total number of cases in the temporary and permanent migration pool, exactly what these cases are and the maximum length of time that cases in this backlog have been outstanding. We also expect to have a complete listing for each immigration category of how many


applications have been made, how many have not yet been processed, and how many have not been completed within the advertised service standard.

Immigration detention

Rule 35 reports

• Rule 35 of the Detention Centre Rules states that medical practitioners are required to report to the Agency any detainee whose health is likely to be injuriously affected by detention or any condition of detention and any detainee they are concerned may be a victim of torture.

• 354 reports were made under Rule 35 to the Agency in Q4 2012, an Increase of 53% from Q3 2012. Thirty-nine reports (11%) resulted in the individual in question being released. This is an increase on the previous quarter when 6% of reports resulted in the individual being released.

Child detention

• Worse performance: 61 children entered immigration detention in Q4 2012, a rise from 48 the previous quarter.

• Improved performance: 59 children left immigration detention in Q3 2012. 92% of those detained had been held for 3 days or less, an improvement from 87% on the previous quarter.


Appeals and tribunals21

Appeals Improvement Plan: progress against targets

Border Agency to represent at 90% of appeals

• Improved performance: An Agency representative was present at 94% of all appeal hearings in Q4 2012, a rise from 87% on the previous quarter.

90% of bundles to be received by the court by the prescribed date

• Unacceptable performance: 75% of cases bundles were delivered to the court on time by the Agency in Q3 2012, a rise from 66% in the previous quarter.

Sponsors and licensing

New sponsor applications

• 1,912 new sponsorship applications were made in Q4 2012, 1,748 for Tier 2, 59 for Tier 4 and 105 for Tier 5.22

• The average length of time it took to process a sponsor application in Q4 2012 was 14 days, a decline from 41 days in the previous quarter. 1,766 applicants took longer than the average length to process.

Follow up visits

Worse performance:

• 34% of follow up visits to Tier 2 sponsors were unannounced in Q4 2012 an increase from 31% in the previous quarter.

• 53% of follow up visits to Tier 4 sponsors were unannounced in Q4 2012 an increase from 30% in the previous quarter.

• 11% of follow up visits to Tier 5 sponsors were unannounced in Q4 2012, the same proportion as in the previous quarter.

21 Figures relate to First Tier Tribunal cases

22 Not all applications for sponsor status in Tier 4 are for new licences, the figure also includes reinstatements.


Departmental information and cooperation with Parliament

Departmental information

• 13,302 FTE equivalent staff were working for the Agency in Q4 2012.

• The Agency spent £572,500 on external consultants in Q4 2012.

Cooperation with Parliament

No significant change:

• The Agency responded to 84% of MPs’ emails within 20 working days in Q4 2012. This fell 11 percentage points short of their target.

• The Agency resolved 56% of queries made via their MP’s Inquiry Line within 10 working days. This fell 34 percentage points short of their target.

• The Agency’s response to this Committee’s data request for Q4 2012 arrived on time.

47. The Committee were deeply concerned to discover that the spending on external consultants in Q4 had increased by a factor of 20 on Q3, a rise from £27,000 to over £500,000. The use of external consultants has been actively discouraged across Whitehall as spending cuts take their toll on budgets. We expect the Home Office to clarify why this huge increase has occurred. We recommend that the Home Office has sensible controls on the use of such consultants.

48. The Committee are concerned that the organisation has missed its targets on responses to MPs queries. Constituents and MPs simply want to know where they stand and it should not take so long to answer such requests. Ultimately this leads to much of the ill-feeling directed at UK Visas and Immigration. If a more detailed and quicker response was sent constituents and MPs would make less representations therefore reducing the workload of the service. We have seen anecdotal evidence that the responses given by the MPs Inquiry Line are below standard and lacking in information. The Committee feel that resources should be concentrated with the MP Account Managers and urge the Home Office to reconsider the merit of the Inquiry Line. In addition, solicitors frequently complain they are unable to get replies, or have to wait a very long time, before receiving a response on immigration cases. It is partly for this reason that solicitors request Members of Parliament to write to the authorities on behalf of constituents. Moreover, MPs themselves continue to experience long delays in receiving replies from the UK Border Agency.


Border Agency Backlogs

23 Bold indicates worse performance

No. of casesQ3

No. of casesQ4

Difference % Increase or decrease since

Q3 201223

‘Live’ asylum cohort 28,500 33,500 5,000 18%

Asylum controlled archive 0 0 0 -

Live immigration cases 4,000 7,000 3,000 75%

Immigration controlled archive 0 0 0 -

FNOs living in the community 3,980 4,102 122 3%

FNOs – untraced 47 47 0 0

Migration refusal pool 181,541 190,615 9,074 5%

FLTR applications not processed within targets 28,558 Unknown Unknown Unknown

No. of cases still to be loaded on CID 59,000 61,103 2,103 4%

FLTR on the basis of marriage or civil partnership – cases pending review 14,000 14,000 0 0

FLTR on basis of marriage or civil partnership – cases pending initial decision

2,100 2,100 0 0

Temporary and permanent migration pool Unknown 190,000 190,000 Unknown

Total 321,726 502,467


Conclusions and recommendations

The abolition of the UKBA

1. The Committee was surprised at Mr Sedwill’s admission and struggle to see how the new organisation is to tackle the ‘closed, secretive and defensive culture’ if it is made up of the same people as before. (Paragraph 14)

2. During evidence to the Committee on the 11 June 2013 Sarah Rapson, Interim Director General of UK Visas and Immigration, was asked what changes to personnel had been made since her appointment on the 18 April 2013. She said that there were: “No new people apart from my private office [...] I am currently talking both with Ministers and the Permanent Secretary about the arrangements for my top team”. (Paragraph 15)

3. The Committee were deeply concerned by this admission. If we are to see a shift in culture the new organisational structure and management must be complemented by the ability for a wholesale restructuring of the employees of the organisation. The newly appointed Directors General must have the ability and resources necessary to implement this change. The Home Office should outline exactly how they propose to bring about this change in culture. It is currently unclear how they plan to address this issue. In her evidence to the Committee on 11th June 2013 Sarah Rapson when asked if she thought the Immigration Service would ever be fixed she said:

Is it ever going to be fixed? I think I answered that question from you earlier. I don’t think so.

The Committee were surprised by this revelation. Although we welcome Ms Rapson’s honesty, the Committee are concerned that the person tasked with ‘fixing’ the agency does not think the job will ever be complete. We are concerned this is an admission that Ms Rapson does not have the resources necessary to ‘fix’ the service. The Home Office should work to reveal the full scale of the backlog so that it is able to apportion the funds necessary to clear the backlog. (Paragraph 16)

4. The UK Border Agency had a troubled history. Many of its problems predate the establishment of the Agency. Ministers must now explain how those problems will not outlive its demise. Establishing the UK Border Agency as an executive agency did not resolve the problems experienced by the old Home Office Immigration and Nationality Directorate and there is no reason to suppose that re-integrating those functions back into the Home Office will do so either. Further, significant change, to management structures, information sharing, processes and IT systems will be required if the Home Office is to succeed in raising the standard of its borders and immigration work. (Paragraph 17)


Entry clearance in the Gulf: conclusions

5. The UK Visas and Immigration Directorate should look to the out-of-country visa processing operation as a model of good practice, to be disseminated more widely around the directorate. We recommend that the Home Office establish a programme of short- to medium-term secondments in and out of the entry clearance operation so that staff throughout the Directorate can have an opportunity to share their knowledge and skills, and senior managers can develop a better understanding of what works, and apply it to those areas of the operation where improvement is required. (Paragraph 33)

6. The Home Office should set a target for making its entry-clearance operation paperless by the end of the next Parliament in 2020. The flow of information and documentation should be electronic from the visa application centre, through the entry-clearance operation and any appeal. The paperless system should also extend to in-country visa renewals, an area of persistently weak performance. (Paragraph 36)

7. The decision letter for Refusal of Entry Clearance is an example of a poor system that must be addressed. The basis for an appeal is determined on this decision letter. If the refusal were made clearer applicants would be able to determine what additional documents were needed and would not need to contact their MP. The Home Office should remodel the refusal notice to make it more understandable to both applicants and sponsors, clearly detailing the additional documents needed for a successful application. This would considerably reduce both the amount of time spent by MPs on such cases and the level of correspondence between MPs and the Home Office. We were glad that Mr Sedwill and Ms Rapson accepted this and we see no reason why this cannot be implemented immediately. We remain surprised by how unclear much of the guidance is for applicants; even those experienced in immigration matters can easily miss details buried in the supporting documents provided. The guidance should be amended so that it is clear what information is required, and how it should be provided. We further expect that where the additional information required is relatively minor, a clear request for it to be provided could lead to a quick reconsideration, rather than starting the entire process again. (Paragraph 37)

Ex-Foreign National offenders

8. Although the Agency has continued to make slow progress in removing the 2006 cohort of foreign prisoners, we are concerned that the number of foreign national ex-offenders living in the community rose by 122 in the final quarter of 2012. The length of time taken to deport an ex-FNO has also increased by nine days. These problems must not be allowed to go unchecked. (Paragraph 39)

Asylum and immigration backlog: live casework

9. When the controlled archives closed the Agency had 33,900 backlog asylum cases and 7,000 backlog immigration cases that it needs to conclude. Most of the individuals concerned will have waited many years to find out the result of their applications. We reiterate our recommendation that the Home Office must now


prioritise the conclusion of their cases and work fast to give them a swift decision. As we have pointed out in evidence sessions, it would be easier to understand the nature of the very substantial backlog and legacy cases if a host of different designations were not used for the numbers involved. (Paragraph 40)

New asylum cases

10. We are concerned to see yet another increase this quarter in the number of asylum cases waiting more than six months for an initial decision. The time taken to process asylum applications is an issue which we are considering in more detail in our inquiry into asylum. (Paragraph 41)

Immigration

11. We were alarmed to discover in Sarah Rapson’s evidence session a further backlog of 190,000 cases in the temporary and permanent migration pool that were never revealed to the Committee before. The total figure for the number of cases in the backlog has reached over half a million (502,462). Whilst we welcome this admission from Ms Rapson and hope she is more forthcoming with this Committee then her predecessor, it is simply unacceptable that new backlogs are routinely revealed in Committee evidence sessions. (Paragraph 44)

12. Ms Rapson must make it a priority to be aware of all the backlogs that there are, and to inform us promptly of them all. If UK Visas and Immigration is truly committed to full transparency and accountability they must be upfront about the total number of cases awaiting resolution. Only when this is done will the Home Office be better able to proportion the appropriate resources to tackle this issue. In Rob Whiteman’s letter of 7 May 2013 to the Chair he said: “As at 31 December 2012 there were 85,833 cases in progress across temporary migration as well as 48,857 cases not yet put on the system to give a total of 134,690 cases in progress overall. I can confirm that as at 31 March 2012 this figure has been reduced to 105,167 cases, with the number of uninput cases at 1,073”. (Paragraph 45)

13. There was no mention of the number of cases in progress across permanent migration. We are concerned that Mr Whiteman has not been as open with the Committee as he should have been. These figures show an increase of 18,261 cases in progress despite the reduction in cases waiting to be put on the system. The Committee are concerned that the organisation simply does not have enough resources to deal with the backlog of cases. The Home Office must clarify the total number of cases in the temporary and permanent migration pool, exactly what these cases are and the maximum length of time that cases in this backlog have been outstanding. We also expect to have a complete listing for each immigration category of how many applications have been made, how many have not yet been processed, and how many have not been completed within the advertised service standard. (Paragraph 46)


Departmental information and cooperation with Parliament

14. The Committee were deeply concerned to discover that the spending on external consultants in Q4 had increased by a factor of 20 on Q3, a rise from £27,000 to over £500,000. The use of external consultants has been actively discouraged across Whitehall as spending cuts take their toll on budgets. We expect the Home Office to clarify why this huge increase has occurred. We recommend that the Home Office has sensible controls on the use of such consultants. (Paragraph 47)

15. The Committee are concerned that the organisation has missed its targets on responses to MPs queries. Constituents and MPs simply want to know where they stand and it should not take so long to answer such requests. Ultimately this leads to much of the ill-feeling directed at UK Visas and Immigration. If a more detailed and quicker response was sent constituents and MPs would make less representations therefore reducing the workload of the service. We have seen anecdotal evidence that the responses given by the MPs Inquiry Line are below standard and lacking in information. The Committee feel that resources should be concentrated with the MP Account Managers and urge the Home Office to reconsider the merit of the Inquiry Line. In addition, solicitors frequently complain they are unable to get replies, or have to wait a very long time, before receiving a response on immigration cases. It is partly for this reason that solicitors request Members of Parliament to write to the authorities on behalf of constituents. Moreover, MPs themselves continue to experience long delays in receiving replies from the UK Border Agency. (Paragraph 48)


Annex I: Home Affairs Committee Reports on the UK Border Agency

Session 2012–13

Fifth Report The work of the UK Border Agency (Dec 2011-Mar 2012) HC 71

Sixth Report The work of the Border Force HC 523

Eighth Report The work of the UK Border Agency (Apr-Jun 2012) HC 603

Fourteenth Report The work of the UK Border Agency (Jul-Sept 2012) HC 792

Session 2010–12

Fourth Report The work of the UK Border Agency HC 587

Seventh Report Student Visas HC 773

Ninth Report The work of the UK Border Agency (Nov 2010–Mar 2011) HC 929

Eleventh Report Student Visas HC 1445

Fifteenth Report The work of the UK Border Agency (Apr– Jul 2011) HC 1497

Seventeenth Report UK Border controls HC 1647

Twenty First Report The work of the UK Border Agency (Aug-Dec 2011) HC 1722

Session 2009–10

Second Report The work of the UK Border Agency HC 105

Third Report The E-Borders programme HC 170

Session 2008–09

First Report Monitoring of the UK Border Agency HC 77

26

Th

e w

ork

of

the

UK

Bo

rder

Ag

ency

(O

cto

ber

–Dec

emb

er 2

012)

Ann

ex II

: Im

mig

rati

on E

nfor

cem

ent

Dir

ecto

rate

Org

anog

ram

Dire

ctor

Gen

eral

Davi

d W

ood

Chie

f of S

taff

Pern

ille

War

e

Diec

tor o

f Ope

ratio

nsTo

ny E

asta

ugh

Dire

ctor

of C

ompl

ianc

e an

d Re

turn

sHu

gh In

d

ICE

Sout

hPa

ul W

ylie

ICE

SNI

Gilli

an M

cGre

gor

Cent

ral O

pera

tions

Rich

ard

Quin

n

ICE

North

,M

idlan

ds +

Wale

sEd

dy M

ontg

omer

y

Crim

inal

Inve

stig

atio

nDa

vid

Penn

ant

Ope

ratio

nal

Inte

lligen

ceDa

vid

Penn

ant

Rem

oval

sCa

sewo

rkSt

eve

Lam

b

Spec

ial C

ases

Phil

Dou

glas

Crim

inal

Cas

ewor

kAn

drew

Jac

kson

Deliv

ery

Team

Nexu

s

Inte

rven

tions

and

Sanc

tions

Vaca

nt

Retu

rns

Jona

than

Nanc

ekiv

ell-S

mith

The

wo

rk o

f th

e U

K B

ord

er A

gen

cy (

Oct

ob

er–D

ecem

ber

201

2)

27

Ann

ex II

I: A

bu D

habi

Ent

ry C

lear

ance

Str

uctu

re O

ct–D

ec 2

012

Car

ol D

ough

tyR

egio

nal D

irect

or G

IPA

bu D

habi

Man

dy Iv

emy

Reg

iona

l Man

ager

GIP

Isla

mab

ad

Ada

m T

omas

zew

ski

Reg

iona

l Bus

ines

s M

anag

erA

bu D

habi

Kev

in W

oods

Reg

iona

l Ope

ratio

ns

Man

ager

Abu

Dha

bi

Trev

or J

ones

Hea

d of

Vis

a S

ectio

nsA

bu D

habi

Eam

on M

cGin

gR

alon

Reg

iona

l Man

ager

Abu

Dha

bi

Abu

Dha

bi IL

M•K

eith

Rin

g

Abu

Dha

bi E

CM

S•

Fion

a S

olom

on•

Tony

a P

entla

nd•

Nei

l Car

ruth

ers

•Li

sa C

arru

ther

s •

Nin

a Th

omps

on•

Reb

ecca

Bre

tt•

Sha

ron

Cav

e

Abu

Dha

bi E

CM

s•

Dav

id F

airb

ank

•S

teve

Pet

tigre

w•

Kar

en R

oger

s•

Chr

is D

enis

on

Abu

Dha

bi

•Ent

ry C

lear

ance

Offi

cers

- 33

Ent

ry C

lear

ance

Ass

ista

nts

–106

•


Formal Minutes

Wednesday 10 July 2013

Members present:

Keith Vaz, in the Chair

James Clappison Michael Ellis Dr Julian Huppert

Steve McCabeChris Ruane Mr David Winnick

Draft Report (The work of the UK Border Agency (October–December 2012)), proposed by the Chair, brought up and read.

Ordered, That the draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.

Paragraphs 1 to 48 read and agreed to.

Annexes agreed to.

Resolved, That the Report be the Fourth Report of the Committee to the House.

Ordered, That the Chair make the Report to the House.

Ordered, That embargoed copies of the Report be made available, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order No. 134.

Written evidence was ordered to be reported to the House for printing with the Report (in addition to that ordered to be reported for publishing on 26 March 2013).

[Adjourned till Tuesday 16 July at 2.30 p.m.


Witnesses

Tuesday 26 March 2013

Mark Sedwill, Permanent Secretary, Home Office, Rob Whiteman, Chief Executive, UK Border Agency and Simon Hayes, Acting Director, International Directorate, UK Border Agency Ev 1

List of printed written evidence

UK Border Agency Ev 22


List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament

The reference number of the Government’s response to each Report is printed in brackets after the HC printing number.

Session 2013–14

First Report Police and Crime Commissioners: Register of Interests HC 69

Second Report Child sexual exploitation and the response to localised grooming

HC 67-I

Third Report Leadership and standards in the police HC 68-I

Session 2012–13 First Report Effectiveness of the Committee in 2010–12 HC 144

Second Report Work of the Permanent Secretary (April–Dec 2011) HC 145

Third Report Pre-appointment Hearing for Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary

HC 183

Fourth Report Private Investigators HC 100

Fifth Report The work of the UK Border Agency (Dec 2011–Mar 2012)

HC 71

Sixth Report The work of the Border Force HC 523

Seventh Report Olympics Security HC 531

Eighth Report

Ninth Report

Tenth Report

The work of the UK Border Agency (April–June 2012)

Drugs: Breaking the Cycle

Powers to investigate the Hillsborough disaster: interim Report on the Independent Police Complaints Commission

HC 603

HC 184

HC 793

Eleventh Report

Twelfth Report

Independent Police Complaints Commission

The draft Anti-social Behaviour Bill: pre-legislative scrutiny

HC 494

HC 836

Thirteenth Report Undercover Policing: Interim Report HC 837

Fourteenth Report The work of the UK Border Agency (July-Sept 2012) HC 792

Session 2010–12

First Report Immigration Cap HC 361

Second Report Policing: Police and Crime Commissioners HC 511

Third Report Firearms Control HC 447

Fourth Report The work of the UK Border Agency HC 587

Fifth Report Police use of Tasers HC 646

Sixth Report Police Finances HC 695

Seventh Report Student Visas HC 773

Eighth Report Forced marriage HC 880

Ninth Report The work of the UK Border Agency (November 2010- HC 929


March 2011)

Tenth Report Implications for the Justice and Home Affairs area of the accession of Turkey to the European Union

HC 789

Eleventh Report Student Visas – follow up HC 1445

Twelfth Report Home Office – Work of the Permanent Secretary HC 928

Thirteenth Report Unauthorised tapping into or hacking of mobile communications

HC 907

Fourteenth Report New Landscape of Policing HC 939

Fifteenth Report The work of the UK Border Agency (April-July 2011) HC 1497

Sixteenth Report Policing large scale disorder HC 1456

Seventeenth Report UK Border Controls HC 1647

Eighteenth Report Rules governing enforced removals from the UK HC 563

Nineteenth Report Roots of violent radicalisation HC 1446

Twentieth Report Extradition HC 644

Twenty-first Report Work of the UK Border Agency (August-Dec 2011) HC 1722

Home Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 1

Oral evidenceTaken before the Home Affairs Committee

on Tuesday 26 March 2013

Members present:

Keith Vaz (Chair)

Michael EllisDr Julian HuppertSteve McCabe

________________

Examination of Witnesses

Witnesses: Mark Sedwill, Permanent Secretary, Home Office, Rob Whiteman, Chief Executive, UK BorderAgency, and Simon Hayes, Acting Director, International Directorate, UK Border Agency, gave evidence.

Q1 Chair: Could I call the Committee to order.Could I ask all Members to declare any interests inadvance of what is in the Register of Members’Interests? My wife is an immigration solicitor; I wantto add that to the declaration.May I welcome the new Permanent Secretary at theHome Office, Mark Sedwill, and the Chief Executiveof the UK Border Agency, Rob Whiteman. This ispart of the Committee’s quarterly look at the UKBAletter. Clearly, gentlemen, things have changed since2pm. We have all heard the Home Secretary’sstatement, and can I thank you, Mr Sedwill, forcoming at short notice. The Home Secretary spoketo me, and I thought it was appropriate, as does theCommittee, that you should come here. The way weare going to deal with this session is that we will askyou, Mr Sedwill, and you, Mr Whiteman, about thesechanges and then you are excused. Mr Sedwill, wewill then continue with our normal examination of thework of the Agency.Mr Sedwill, you were not known when you were atthe Foreign Office as being an assassin as far asadministration is concerned, but it is 54 days sinceyou took over as Permanent Secretary, a non-HomeOffice official, and we have, in effect, the axing of theUK Border Agency. Is this your doing, or was this inthe pipeline before you arrived?Mark Sedwill: Mr Chairman, first, thank you forallowing me to join your session today. I know I amback before the Committee in the standard PermanentSecretary session at the end of April, and I understandyou are not letting me off the hook on that one, so Ilook forward to being back before you then.The simple answer to your question is that it is verymuch the Home Secretary’s change. She led thereview process, as she mentioned in the House. It wasa very thorough process. Indeed, the first meeting Iattended with her on it was the week before I becamePermanent Secretary, when she started to look at thestructure of the Border Agency and then led towardsthis conclusion, and it is probably one of the mostthorough processes I have been involved in that hasled up to a machinery of Government change of thissignificance.

Q2 Chair: What is wrong with the UK BorderAgency that meant that it had to be abolished, then

Bridget PhillipsonMark RecklessMr David Winnick

split in two and then taken under the control of theHome Office?Mark Sedwill: I think the Home Secretary set it outin the House, Mr Chairman, and I can really only reston her explanation. She felt—and I think we all felt—the Border Agency did not have the right size andshape to deliver in particular against the immigrationpolicy that the Government has been working on sincethe election. Of course, some of the changes werepositive. The integration of Customs into the BorderAgency and that remaining part of the Border Forcehas been a genuinely positive experience, which hasled to more effective working at the border itself andthe Border Force is now a successful organisation, butwe felt it was right to continue the process ofmodernisation by creating these two neworganisations with coherent but distinct cultures, onedevoted to customer service and volume processing,the other devoted to law enforcement.

Q3 Chair: Mr Whiteman, this must have been a hugeblow to you, because only on 18 December, theImmigration Minister said, “One of the encouragingthings that Rob Whiteman has been doing since hehas been Chief Executive is pulling together workacross the Agency so that he and his seniormanagement team and the board focus on all theAgency’s operations”. Also, he said, “One of thethings that we are doing now is we brought in a newChief Executive. Rob outlined for you clearly someof the changes he is making in the senior managementstructure”. This must have been a terrible shock toyou to find out suddenly the Agency that you wereappointed to head had now disappeared.Rob Whiteman: It is not a terrible shock, and actuallyit is not a blow, Chairman.Mr Winnick: I did not quite get that. It is or wasn’ta great shock?Rob Whiteman: Not a shock and nor a blow, MrWinnick, in that the process of review was in orderto deal with the problems of the Agency’s size andtransparency, or lack of transparency, and some of theinherent problems around ICT. The work that I havedone I hope contributes to a successful future fortaking the Agency into the Home Office, ensuring thatwe have new commands with distinct grips in the waythat the Permanent Secretary has set out. It is the right

Ev 2 Home Affairs Committee: Evidence

26 March 2013 Mark Sedwill, Rob Whiteman and Simon Hayes

thing to do. Perhaps nobody knows better than I thesize of UKBA, and we think that we can buildpositively on what has happened over the last 18months.

Q4 Chair: But you have seen our last report, whichwe published on Monday. I think you have appearedin front of us four times since you have become ChiefExecutive. You have never said before to theCommittee that you felt there was something sowrong with this organisation that it had be abolished.Did you hear what the Home Secretary said about thisAgency, that it was “closed, secretive and defensive”?To be described as “closed, secretive and defensive”is a pretty severe attack on the Agency that you areleading.Rob Whiteman: I think I have said on a number ofoccasions here, Chair—Chair: That it is “closed, secretive and defensive”?Rob Whiteman: I have said on a number of occasionshere, Chairman, that one of the problems of theAgency is that it has given incorrect information inthe past. I have created the Performance andCompliance Unit, recognising the problems of theAgency’s culture and also the poor transparency of thepast, so I hope I have advised you about the scale ofwhat is needed at UKBA. I have always said it willtake many years to put it right, and I think that thechanges that the Home Secretary has announced todayare the right direction in terms of a greater directionon operational focus, while at the same time some ofthe things that have undermined the Agency—poorsystems, poor ICT—Mr Sedwill has put in the contextof Home Office reform and efforts to improve them.

Q5 Chair: Mr Whiteman, it is not just about newcomputers, is it? We cannot have the same people whowere running the Agency just now going to this neworganisation. You yourself were appointed to anorganisation that had the Border Force and the UKBAin it. The Border Force went off, so you were the headof the other bit, and now that bit is being split in halfand being taken under the control of the Home Office.This is a very odd way to organise a managementstructure. Have you ever been in a job like that before,where you are given a job, it is then halved, the otherbit is then abolished and presumably you now have toapply for a job? Are you out of a job from Monday?Rob Whiteman: I perhaps will let the PermanentSecretary tell you of my future.Chair: What, you mean you don’t know?Rob Whiteman: No.

Q6 Chair: Mr Sedwill, we are worried about MrWhiteman, because his jobs and his organisationsseem to be abolished beneath him. He hangs on to thesalary that he was originally given, which I think was£180,000-odd.Rob Whiteman: £175,000.Chair: £175,000. Sorry, I have given you £5,000more. The Committee likes Mr Whiteman, because heis the only senior member of the UKBA who did nottake a bonus last year, so that impressed us. But whatis his status, because from Monday we understand—

not from the Home Secretary, but from the BBC—that the new Agency will start?Mark Sedwill: I think the Home Secretary did say inthe House that she was going to dissolve theAgency—and that would take effect at the end of thisfinancial year and into the next—and therefore will beintegrated into the Home Office in the new financialyear. So the BBC may have picked it up, but shecertainly said it.Mr Whiteman will be part of the future of the HomeOffice reform. You will understand why I do not wantto get into individual personnel matters in front of theCommittee. I still have to talk this through with thecommittee and so on.Chair: No, we understand, but we do not want youto negotiate—Mark Sedwill: He is a big part of the future of theHome Office.Chair: I am sure he is. We do not want you to talkpersonnel issues. Of course we do not want you tonegotiate Mr Whiteman’s contract in front of us, butthe fact is he started with a job that had the whole ofthe Agency. It was split in half. He is now still on£175,000 and the Agency has now been abolished.When we write to the Chief Executive, there is noChief Executive from Monday, so who is running theshop from Monday?Mark Sedwill: Ministers are running the shop fromMonday, and that is the point that the Home Secretarymade. She wanted to bring to Ministers much cleareraccountability for what has been the UK BorderAgency—

Q7 Chair: Let us be clear: from Monday we write tothe Home Secretary on any issues?Mark Sedwill: The Home Secretary announced thechanges today, but we still have to appoint directorsgeneral for the two new commands, and, as shepointed out, probably the most important change hereis that we are going to take the systems that workacross the Agency into other parts of the Home Office,IPS, policing and all the rest of it, and that is a very,very big job, because that has been part of the problemthat the Agency has faced.Chair: I understand.Mark Sedwill: So you will be writing either to thetwo directors general for the two new commands thatthe Home Secretary described today or of course toMinisters.

Q8 Chair: They are vacant—we can’t write to thosewho are heading the commands, because they do notexist. Presumably you are going to advertise theirjobs?Mark Sedwill: We will make interim appointmentsvery quickly, and then there will be a full recruitmentprocess to recruit permanent appointments to thosejobs over the next few months.

Q9 Chair: You know, what worries me, MrSedwill—and I am going to ask colleagues to comein now—is the fact that it all sounds a bit chaotic. Wehad the Prime Minister’s speech on Monday—and ofcourse I would understand you saying it is not chaotic;you are the Permanent Secretary—and on Tuesday we



had this statement. We have no idea as to who is goingto run the Agency from Monday. You are going tomake interim appointments. You have a live ChiefExecutive sitting on your left-hand side who at themoment does not have a job because he is not one ofthe interim directors general, so from now on,presumably until we get these interim people, we willwrite to the Home Secretary about these matters?Mark Sedwill: What I would suggest, Mr Chairman,is you continue to write to Ministers about the mattersyou currently write to Ministers on. Rob Whitemanwill still be here on Monday and will still beoverseeing the transformation programme of theAgency. We cannot just flick a switch and put it outof existence overnight.Chair: Exactly.Mark Sedwill: Apart from anything else, it wasbrought into existence by an Act of Parliament, andwe still need the Agency to, for example, collect—

Q10 Chair: So, Rob Whiteman will be the head oftransition?Mark Sedwill: Exactly, so he will still be in place aspart of the transition.

Q11 Chair: That is going to be his title, or have Ijust given him the title?Mark Sedwill: Sorry?Chair: Is his new title the Head of Transition?Mark Sedwill: No.

Q12 Chair: What is his title for Monday?Mark Sedwill: We are still working on exactly whatthat is. It is not chaotic, Mr Chairman, but you willunderstand—Chair: It sounds pretty chaotic.Mark Sedwill: You will understand that the HomeSecretary set out a policy announcement today. Shefelt she should do that before the Easter recess.Chair: Of course, yes.Mark Sedwill: Had we started making appointmentsof this kind, the news would have leaked out and thenyou would have called us in front of you asking uswhy it was we had not made a policy announcementin Parliament before we started to make themanagerial changes. So, we are seeking to do this inthe most orderly way we can, commensurate with thetransparency we owe to Parliament.

Q13 Chair: Of course. But of course we have alwaysknown we are going into recess or we have known forsome time, so you could have organised it slightlybetter. But the current position is Mr Whiteman is nolonger the chief executive from Monday; he does nothave a title; he is still very much with us and he isgoing to oversee the transition.Mark Sedwill: He does have a title. He is a directorgeneral in the Home Office, and he will oversee thetransition of the Border Agency to the new structuresand will be making interim appointments swiftly,shortly after Easter, and then permanent appointmentsin due course, and then Rob will continue in a majorrole in the Home Office overseeing thistransformation.

Q14 Chair: I am sure he is very pleased about that.Just one final question from me; in our report, thereseems to be five people on your board, Mr Whiteman,who are not currently in post, but presumably youhave appointed them. Mr Hayes, whom we will hearfrom later, of course is an acting executive director.What happens to those five who you have appointedto the board and who have not started their jobs?Rob Whiteman: Those recent appointments stay inpost, Mr Vaz, and of course they go into newcommands that will be led by directors general.Chair: Excellent.Rob Whiteman: We have made good appointments todirector positions, and they will report to the new DG.Chair: We will come on to that in a minute; DavidWinnick, and then other colleagues.

Q15 Mr Winnick: Mr Whiteman, it is no reflectionon you, for the reasons the Chair remarked, but youwill accept, will you not, that UKBA was an unlovedorganisation and it certainly will not be missed?Rob Whiteman: I would say that, yes. It has had avery bad reputation, and I think that is a shame forthe many, many dedicated staff. UKBA has manyexcellent staff who every day do a good job, and Iabsolutely believe that the changes that the HomeSecretary has announced will ensure that they are inorganisations of which they can be more proud as thetransformation of the Home Office occurs.

Q16 Mr Winnick: Let me put it to you this way, MrWhiteman. I certainly think, and I am sure that mycolleagues agree, that it would have beeninappropriate for you to have come to the HomeAffairs Committee and said, “The organisation reallyis in such a state that it needs reorganising.” Wewouldn’t have expected you to say that and certainlynot the Home Secretary, to say the least, but at whatstage did you come to the view—if you did; perhapsyou didn’t—that, having been appointed and seen thesituation as it is, the Agency really just would notserve its purpose, it wasn’t fit for purpose, even if youdid not communicate that to some of your immediatecolleagues? Or did you not come to that view at all?Rob Whiteman: I don’t think I came to that view atan exact moment in time, Mr Winnick. What mattershere is that we have given the Home Secretary optionsin the way that she has wanted, and of course my jobas a civil servant is to give an honest and true accountof what is working well or better at UKBA but alsowhat is not working well and how the changes thatcould be brought about will improve it. I think my jobis to give honest and true advice on both thosescenarios.

Q17 Mr Winnick: I want to come to Mr Sedwill injust a moment, but one further question to you: youare quite happy, are you, if that is the right word, tobe involved in a senior position in immigrationmatters; your work at UKBA has not put you offdoing this sort of work?Rob Whiteman: No, absolutely not, Mr Winnick. Iremain very committed to the Immigration Service ofthe Home Office and the work of the Home Office ingeneral. I remain absolutely committed to that, and I



hope that in the future role that I am being given, inorder to make sure that the systems that support HomeOffice operations are working effectively, I can addvalue to the Immigration Service as well as to otherparts of the Home Office.

Q18 Mr Winnick: Mr Sedwill, the Home Secretaryexplained the splitting into two different organisationsand the reasons, but you will be chairing all theconstituent organisations in the Immigration Service,immigration, passport, Border Force and so on and soforth. That will be your job, chairing it, yes?Mark Sedwill: Not of the Agency. We have a seriesof governance structures within the Home Office, and,as the Home Secretary said, there will be a board thatis designed to bring all of the pieces of theimmigration system together, so the Border Force, thetwo new commands—Mr Winnick: I understand that, but you will bechairing it?Mark Sedwill: Yes.Mr Winnick: How much of that will—Mark Sedwill: As will Ministers, of course; theMinisters and I will chair this, depending on thefocus of—

Q19 Mr Winnick: Yes, but you are the most seniorofficial obviously in the Home Office, and you haveenough responsibilities, I am sure, to occupy yourselfat the moment. How much time will you thereforehave to chair this board?Mark Sedwill: I can’t say exactly how much time itwill require. It varies from time to time, to be honest,and so we spend a great deal of time on the BorderAgency at the moment because of the changes theHome Secretary was contemplating, and I expect itwill be a major burden or a major priority for meover the next months until we have the new structurestabilised. I would then expect it to move into a morenormal management system.

Q20 Mr Winnick: You see, Mr Sedwill, UKBA, asI have said, has never been particularly liked. I havedescribed it as an organisation that was unloved,chaotic and with tens of thousands of outstandingcases; a lot of the time there was sheer inefficiency.You have read our reports, and I am sure you haveread our last report. It was a pretty damningindictment of the organisation, and much of it not thefault of Mr Whiteman, but why should we have anyconfidence that this new organisation—or two neworganisations and the board and the rest of it—will inpractice be any more efficient, any more able toovercome the chaotic system that existed, yes, underthe previous Government and the three years sincethis Government has been in office and be any better?Mark Sedwill: I am sure you will want to continue toscrutinise it, Mr Winnick.Mr Winnick: To say the least, to say the least.Mark Sedwill: Indeed, and certainly neither I nor theHome Secretary would claim that this change,although it is a significant modernisation, is in itselfgoing to transform the Agency. It is what we do now.So we believe that by making the changes that theHome Secretary set out today, we have essentially

established the right platform for tackling all of thoseunderlying issues that you refer to, including, as theHome Secretary said, the underlying casemanagement systems, the ICT and so on, and to dothat in a more coherent way than we have been ableto in the past. But this is just the first step. It is anecessary step, but it is not a sufficient one, and wehave to get the hard part, in a sense, started.Chair: Thank you. We have to move on, Mr Winnick.Dr Huppert.

Q21 Dr Huppert: I absolutely understand that youboth have to be very on-message and support theHome Secretary’s suggestion that this is carefullymanaged and planned. Presently you are doing a fairlyvaliant job on that. The thing that is slightlyproblematic in that is the statement that came out onThursday from the Immigration Minister, because justlast Thursday there was this written ministerialstatement that says, “The UK Border Agency isplaying an important role. It has already shown signsof significant improvement. It is building on success”,and then ends by saying, “I am confident that thesemeasures represent the start of a period of furtherimprovement that will leave the UK Border Agencyon the sure footing necessary to continue to deliver asafe and efficient immigration system.” So onThursday it was doing well, getting better and aboutto be on a sure footing; on Tuesday it is killed. Now,other than our report, what changed between Thursdayand Tuesday that made it from getting better to beingdisposed of?Mark Sedwill: I hesitate to suggest that it wasn’t thereport that triggered that, but I am afraid it was not.The Home Secretary was reviewing this for severalmonths, and of course you would not expect Ministersto foreshadow a decision that had not yet been made.The dissolution of an agency and the reintegration intothe Home Office has to be approved by not only theHome Secretary but by other members of theGovernment, the Prime Minister, the Deputy PrimeMinister, there are measures with the Treasury and soon. All of that had to go through, so we have beenworking up to this for some time, but the actual formaldecisions were taken only in the last few days. TheHome Secretary took the decision, rightly, that as soonas that decision had been taken—the Prime Minister,as she said, mentioned it in his speech yesterday—sheshould bring it to the House, not least becauseotherwise there is a risk of a leak and it comes out inan unco-ordinated, chaotic way.

Q22 Dr Huppert: But on Thursday, was theImmigration Minister aware that this was likely tohappen?Mark Sedwill: The Immigration Minister has beenintimately involved in this throughout.

Q23 Dr Huppert: In that case, why would he tell theHouse that he was confident that there will be a periodof further improvement that will leave the UK BorderAgency on a sure footing? If he knew that there wasa high chance in the next few days there would notbe, he could have just left that paragraph out, rather



than saying something that was likely not to be truein the next few days.Mark Sedwill: You will forgive me, Dr Huppert, fornot seeking to try either to correct or to speak for theImmigration Minister, but the substance of theImmigration Minister’s remarks was that there havebeen improvements, as there have under theleadership of Rob Whiteman. You have acknowledgedthat yourselves, and we expect those improvements tocontinue, as the Immigration Minister set out. Webelieve the changes we are making are the right onesto enable that. It is not that there has been a suddenchange of policy, but of course he could not havehinted to the House at this change before the decisionwas taken.

Q24 Dr Huppert: But he did not have to table thestatement on the Thursday when there was not adecision, and hence he had to say something that turnsout not to be right. He could have waited untilTuesday, presumably.Chair: Mr Sedwill, the reason why Dr Huppert ispursuing this, with the support of the Committee, isthat if you look at the last paragraph of thestatement—we are not saying this but some may saythat this is tantamount to misleading the House if theImmigration Minister knew that these changes weregoing to be made. This was the point that Dr Huppertis making. He is not accusing the Minister, but if youlook at that last paragraph, indeed he says it is goingto deliver a safe and efficient immigration system, butby Tuesday afternoon the Home Secretary describedit as “closed, secretive and defensive”. This is not anepisode of The Thick of It. This is the Home Office,running the Immigration Department. This is a seriousmatter, isn’t it? Unless you are telling us that thedecision was made after Thursday, after the statementwas made, then we could understand the lastparagraph.Mark Sedwill: That is my point. The final decisionwas taken after Thursday and the Home Secretarybrought it to the House on the first opportunity afterthe final decision was taken.

Q25 Chair: So, after this statement was made?Mark Sedwill: But the process leading up to thatdecision was very hard one.Chair: Of course, we understand.Mark Sedwill: Indeed, I think, if my recollection iscorrect, the final meeting I had with the HomeSecretary on this before she took the proposal to thePrime Minister and other Members of the Cabinet wason Thursday afternoon.

Q26 Dr Huppert: But when you say it was the firstopportunity, presumably if the decision was made onThursday afternoon, which you are now suggesting—Mark Sedwill: No, the Home Secretary herself, butthe dissolution of an agency is a matter not just forthe Home Office; it is for the rest of Government.Dr Huppert: So, exactly when was the finaldecision made?Mark Sedwill: I think the Home Secretary talked itover with the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime

Minister for the last time this morning before thedecision—Chair: This morning?Mark Sedwill:—was made to bring it before the—

Q27 Dr Huppert: So, it was a carefully managedplan that happened within a couple of hours thismorning?Mark Sedwill: No, no. Mr Chairman, you are seekingto try to put words into my mouth. I am trying toexplain.

Q28 Chair: No, Mr Sedwill, shall we pause a minuteso that you can have a think about this before you sayanything further? What you have told the Committeeso far is that the Immigration Minister in good faithlaid a statement before the House on Thursday 21March; that there had been ongoing discussions formany, many months; and Mr Whiteman was part ofthis discussion. Nobody at that stage presumablythought it was a closed, secretive and defensiveorganisation, but after Thursday afternoon, after thismatter had been put before the House, it went to thePrime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister thismorning for final sign-off?Mark Sedwill: Mr Chairman, it would not be right forme to get into all of the conversations, some of whichI am not privy to, within Government.Chair: Sorry, with greatest respect, Mr Sedwill, youare sitting in front of us today because I had aconversation with the Home Secretary and sheoffered you.Mark Sedwill: I know.Chair: I do not whether as a sacrificial lamb, but sheoffered you to come here to answer all our questions.Mark Sedwill: I am doing my—Chair: Otherwise, believe me, she would be sitting inyour place.Mark Sedwill: I am doing my best, Mr Chairman.

Q29 Chair: So we would expect you, as thePermanent Secretary, to be able to know answers tothis question. When was it finally signed off?Mark Sedwill: The final decision was taken overnight.

Q30 Chair: Not this morning?Mark Sedwill: The Home Secretary confirmed—well, overnight.Chair: Mr Sedwill, you are not doing yourself anyfavours.Mark Sedwill: I know. I realise, Mr Chairman, andI apologise.

Q31 Chair: You have so far told us it was taken afterthe statement; you have told us it was taken overnight;you told us it was taken this morning and next youare going to be talking about close of play and othercricketing terms. Just very, very simply, when was thedecision taken? When did the Prime Minister and theDeputy Prime Minister sign this off, becausesomebody must have prepared the statement for theHome Secretary to put before the House. When?Mark Sedwill: Let me just take you through thesequence then, Mr Chairman.Chair: Please.



Mark Sedwill: The Home Secretary has had a seriesof meetings on this over the last few months,including before I became Permanent Secretary, and Iwas involved in one of those just the week before Itook over. We had the final one of those verysubstantive meetings with her on Thursday, and as aresult of that meeting—Chair: On Thursday last week?Mark Sedwill: On Thursday.

Q32 Dr Huppert: On the day you tabled the writtenministerial statement saying nothing about it?Mark Sedwill: Well—Chair: On Thursday 21 March?Mark Sedwill: Indeed, on Thursday.

Q33 Chair: Who was present at the meeting?Mark Sedwill: It was an internal Home Officemeeting with myself, the Home Secretary, MrWhiteman and other officials.Chair: Excellent.Mark Sedwill: As a result of that meeting, sheconcluded this was the right answer.Chair: Excellent.Mark Sedwill: She then had to secure the formalagreement of other members of Government.Chair: Sure.Mark Sedwill: In order to dissolve an Agency, theMinister at the Cabinet Office has to be involved, theTreasury has to be involved, and of course, because itis a Coalition Government, both the Prime Ministerand Deputy Prime Minister have to be comfortable.We had a further meeting in the Cabinet Officeyesterday, having had some discussions over theweekend on the modalities for this, including onwhether announcements should be made before orafter the recess. A final note went to the PrimeMinister overnight, and, as a result of that note, itwas decided that the Home Secretary should make astatement to the House today before the recess, andthe statement was completed this morning so that theHome Secretary could make the announcement.Chair: So, does that give you an answer, Dr Huppert?Dr Huppert: It does.Chair: Because it clarifies the different—

Q34 Dr Huppert: It does. What is not clear is whythis other statement, and indeed a 23-pageGovernment response on the work of the BorderAgency, was published on the Thursday when youwere having the last-minute conversations. Did it notoccur to anybody that it would have been sensible notto do that when you are about to change everythingand to do everything together, because that would atleast look more controlled, rather than the idea thatpolicy has suddenly swung from a Thursday to aTuesday.Mark Sedwill: It really has not. It genuinely has notsuddenly swung from a Thursday to a Tuesday.Dr Huppert: But it does look like it. Do youunderstand what it looks like?Mark Sedwill: I understand the perception, but ofcourse one of the options would have been to havewaited until after the recess for the Home Secretaryto make the statement and we could have spent the

Easter recess working on some more of the details,but the conclusion Ministers reached, I think rightly,was that having made the decision, the PrimeMinister, the Deputy Prime Minister and othermembers of the Cabinet having approved it, the rightcourse of action was to tell the House at the earliestopportunity.

Q35 Chair: Sorry, you have now brought in theCabinet. Was it taken to the Cabinet?Mark Sedwill: I said other members of the Cabinet.Chair: Oh, right. So there was no Cabinet meeting?Mark Sedwill: I referred to two of the other Ministersa moment ago, Mr Chair.Chair: I think this is very clear, and you have givenus—sort of—a clear account of what happened. I willcall Steve McCabe, then Mark Reckless, BridgetPhillipson and Michael Ellis, and then we are doneon this.

Q36 Steve McCabe: I hope the poor ImmigrationMinister is more in the loop when he adopts his newresponsibilities.Mr Whiteman, I think I have to ask you this. Iunderstand why Mr Sedwill says we should notdiscuss personnel matters, but do you think in this ageof austerity the public will understand how someonewho ends up with a quarter of the responsibilities heoriginally had should keep the same salary level?Rob Whiteman: I don’t mind your asking about it atall, Mr McCabe. My responsibilities will be different.Steve McCabe: They have been reduced by threequarters from the job you were appointed to.Rob Whiteman: In respect of running operations, thatis quite correct, but in terms of making sure that thesystems of the Home Office work effectively, in termsof support to those operations and indeed to otheroperations with which I am presently not involved, Ithink the job that Mr Sedwill has asked me to do isan important one for the future of the Home Office. Itis different. It is a more strategic job across a widerremit of the Home Office, and, yes, it involves lessdirect management of operations. It is a different job,Mr McCabe.

Q37 Steve McCabe: Do you think the public willunderstand my point?Rob Whiteman: Yes, I understand the point you aremaking, Mr McCabe, and I hope I have given you anhonest answer, but one of the things about the CivilService is we have very different roles and there aresupport roles and there are roles running operationsand there are roles in policy, and I hope that the jobthat Mr Sedwill has asked me to do will add value toour operations and indeed to the wider Home Office.

Q38 Chair: Excellent. You were offered that jobwhen? Today?Rob Whiteman: While the changes have been underdiscussion, Chairman, Mr Sedwill and I have had anumber of conversations.Chair: It was offered before Thursday?Rob Whiteman: We have been discussing what wouldhappen over a period of time, but the importantthing—



Chair: The important thing is clarity, because you arethe Head of the Agency, and you answered lettersfrom us. You have been discussing with Mr Sedwillyour appointment as the Head of Transition beforeThursday?Rob Whiteman: No, the decision was made onThursday, and I have been working on effecting thattransition.Chair: Since Thursday afternoon you know you havea job doing the transition?Mark Sedwill: To be clear, Mr Chairman, we havebeen having discussions separately about the kind ofrole that Mr Whiteman would play in the future, butof course there was no decision.Chair: Of course, until this morning.Mark Sedwill: Therefore there was no decision on theexact structure of the Agency until we had completedthe process, and so we were not in a position to—Chair: Sure. Which happened this morning?Mark Sedwill: The final approval was given thismorning. The decision, as I said, was made by theHome Secretary on Thursday afternoon.

Q39 Mr Winnick: Can I ask what time?Chair: What time?Mr Winnick: What time in the morning?Chair: What time was the meeting that finally signedthis off on Thursday?Mr Winnick: It is a simple question.Mark Sedwill: I don’t know. We had a message back.The Home Secretary was at Cabinet this morning, andwe had a message back during that period that thefinal conversations had taken place, the final approvalshad been given and we could go ahead.

Q40 Mr Winnick: But that would have all beenrecorded, wouldn’t it, in the office?Mark Sedwill: Not necessarily. The—

Q41 Chair: Sorry, you wouldn’t record in the officea message from No. 10?Mark Sedwill: No, no. We do not record minute byminute when conversations happen. Yes, of course wewill have recorded from the Cabinet meeting thismorning that we had the approval to go ahead withthe statement this afternoon.

Q42 Mr Winnick: So, you can send the information,even if you do not have it now?Mark Sedwill: It was in a period this morning duringthe Cabinet meeting. I don’t know exactly what timethat was. I am not sure why that—Chair: Okay, that is very helpful. We will pursue that.Mr Winnick: I think it is very unhelpful, but thereyou are.

Q43 Mark Reckless: Mr Sedwill, you said therewere a series of meetings over the past few monthsabout abolition of UKBA and that the final meetingin the Home Office or decision was on the Thursday,and the Home Office decided on Thursday as far as itwas concerned to recommend abolition of UKBA, isthat correct? Why then did a Home Office Ministergive a statement to Parliament on that Thursday

saying he was confident UKBA was going tocontinue?Mark Sedwill: As I have already explained, theAgency was still in being and the formal decision byGovernment as a whole, which of course is a morecomplex business with a Coalition Government, hadnot been taken. What he was talking about was theimmigration system, and so he was seeking to answera report against the background of a decision that hadnot been reached.

Q44 Mark Reckless: With respect, Mr Sedwill, hewas not talking about the immigration system; he wastalking about the UK Border Agency, and in this finalparagraph in the statement he says he is confident itis going to continue on a sure footing. It had beendecided by the Home Office to recommend itsabolition, yet a Minister was telling Parliament he wasconfident it was going to continue. Was the Ministerout of the loop, or was Parliament misled?Mark Sedwill: I would not characterise it as either ofthose, Mr Reckless. It would have been wrong for theMinister to have foreshadowed either by commissionor omission a change to the status of the BorderAgency that had not yet been through the full processof approval within Government. The Agency, the legalpersonality, will continue for some time into the nextfinancial year, because that is necessary for thefunctioning of the immigration system, including, forexample, the collection of fees. The Agency wasestablished by an Act of Parliament, and thereforethere will have to be some formal changes to its status.So it is wrong to say that the Agency has beenabolished overnight. The Home Secretary set out thepolicy decision to dissolve the Agency and bring itback into the Home Office. The implementation willtake some time.

Q45 Mark Reckless: Mr Sedwill, I find your claimthat it would have been an error of omission not toinclude that final paragraph in Thursday’s writtenstatement absolutely extraordinary, knowing that adecision has been made in the Home Office, that theHome Office is recommending abolition of UKBA,and for a Home Office Minister then to make astatement to Parliament saying that it is on a surefooting.Mark Sedwill: The Minister was, I think, seeking toaddress the specific points about the immigrationsystem as a whole, and it would have been wrong, Ithink, for him to foreshadow that statement.

Q46 Mark Reckless: I am sorry, Mr Sedwill, justread this.Mark Sedwill: I don’t have the paragraph in front ofme.Mark Reckless: It refers again and again and againto UKBA, not to the immigration system as a whole.Chair: Mr Reckless, could we just give Mr Sedwill acopy of the statement? I am surprised that you havenot seen it.Mark Sedwill: No, I am not saying I have not seen it.I just do not have it in front of me, and I do not—Chair: Mr Reckless, Mr Sedwill now has it.



Q47 Mark Reckless: With hindsight, Mr Sedwill,was it really sensible to include that final paragraphin a statement to Parliament on the same day that theHome Office decided it wanted to abolish the UKBA?Mark Sedwill: I think on reflection, Mr Reckless, aslightly vaguer statement might have been wise, but Iwould not accept the criticism that we, let alone theImmigration Minister himself, misled the House. Ithink I have tried to explain the sequence of thesedecisions, and there was certainly no decision by thenthat there would be a parliamentary statement today.Indeed, at that time we had not reached a conclusionabout exactly how or when the Home Secretary wouldmake this announcement to the House, and that wastaken thereafter.

Q48 Mark Reckless: Two things happened that seemto be relevant between Thursday and today. One, theHome Affairs Select Committee published our reportagain castigating—and perhaps even more stronglythan previously—the performance of the UKBA, andsecondly, the Prime Minister made, as you say, abroad-ranging speech on the immigration system as awhole. Doesn’t today’s statement reflect one or eitheror both of those developments?Mark Sedwill: I think they are both important inputs.We knew that your report was likely to be critical. Wehad seen of course the Chief Inspector’s report andwe were aware that you were likely to issue a sharplycritical report at this time, and of course we seeembargoed copies and so on shortly in advance.Indeed, we handle them very, very carefully. We alsoknew both the Deputy Prime Minister, who wasspeaking on Friday, and the Prime Minister weremaking big speeches on immigration around this time,and all of that informed the decision, not the decisionof substance that the Home Secretary set out today,because that decision I think would have been takenanyway, but they were of course important contexts tothe political choice for the Home Secretary to make astatement before Parliament this afternoon.

Q49 Chair: It was the timing that was influenced; isthat what you are telling the Committee?Mark Sedwill: Yes, fundamentally it was timing. Givethat those speeches had been made and so on, it madesense for the Home Secretary to come beforeParliament on the first opportunity, which was thisafternoon, in order to make this statement.

Q50 Mark Reckless: Is it usual for a Prime Ministeror even a Deputy Prime Minister to make a majorspeech on a big area of policy immediately before adecision is taken, rather than immediately after?Mark Sedwill: Of course you will see if you read thePrime Minister’s speech carefully, he says that theHome Secretary will be bringing forward changes tothe Border Agency. He was quite clear about that, buthe did not want his own speech to be sort of wrappedin the structuring news, because he was making amuch broader speech about immigration policy andthe Government’s policy as a whole, as was theDeputy Prime Minister. It is wrong to suggest thatsomehow there is a series of conversations with theHome Office to which no one else was privy and then

suddenly we launched this on to an unsuspectingsystem. The centre—Downing Street, the CabinetOffice and others—had been involved in this processall the way through—Mark Reckless: Would it be fair to say—Mark Sedwill:—and that the point I was trying toanswer earlier was about the specific and formalmoments when we were able to have the HomeSecretary make her statement.

Q51 Mark Reckless: Would it be fair to say that thePrime Minister’s interest in the speech acceleratedthis decision?Mark Sedwill: The decision, no, because we haddecided some time ago that the Home Secretarywanted to reach a conclusion on this matter before theEaster recess. In terms of the choice about when tomake the announcement, then of course a big speechby the Prime Minister in this policy area was arelevant factor.

Q52 Mark Reckless: The Home Secretary said in herstatement that you would be chairing this oversightboard, is that right—Mark Sedwill: That is right.Mark Reckless:—or did he say that she would bechairing it?Mark Sedwill: Of course I do all of this on her behalf,but we already have a border strategy board, which ischaired by the Minister for Immigration. That bringsin various agencies, but in terms of actual officialleadership of this, doing the performance reviews,ensuring that we have the right systems in place, thatis part of my job, yes.

Q53 Mark Reckless: Finally, if I may, Chair, theenforcement part of the Home Office for immigration:how do you see that operating with the NationalCrime Agency sort of border command?Mark Sedwill: I think you highlight a very importantpoint, and one of the reasons or one of the factors thathas not really come out either in Parliament or in theHouse today or in the Committee is that the formationof the National Crime Agency is an important factor.It has a border policing command, and that is oneof the reasons that it makes sense to have a separateenforcement and regulatory function for theimmigration system within the Home Office, becausethat relationship with the National Crime Agency andits new responsibilities is a crucial part of essentiallytackling the enforcement problems and the gaps wehave in that in the future. So, that is another factorthat was weighed in the decision of substance that theHome Secretary took.Chair: Thank you. Mr Ellis has waited very patiently,and I am very grateful.

Q54 Michael Ellis: Gentlemen, can I posit asuggestion to you? When two companies merge orsplit, for that matter, they do not make announcementsto their shareholders before they are ready to makesuch announcements, do they? Would you accept thatas a posited suggestion? It would be irresponsible, infact, to do so, to make incomplete announcements.You have been asked many questions on process. I



just want to try to crystallise it, if I may. Is it yourposition therefore that effectively there is a three-stageprocess to this, that there is the decision-makingprocess, which you, Mr Sedwill, have said wasmonths in the making, that pre-dates you asPermanent Secretary at the office for the HomeDepartment, that had been ongoing before your arrivalthere and that was going on for months? That is stepone. Step two is making an approval of the decisionwhen that decision has been made, and step three isannouncing that decision. Would you accept that?Mark Sedwill: Yes.

Q55 Michael Ellis: So what your case is, if I can putit that way, is that the decision-making process hadbeen going on for months, it well pre-dates thishonourable Committee’s recent report—but of coursethis Committee has produced several highly scepticalreports, and rightly so, on the work of the UKBA—but as a consequence perhaps of that and many otherfactors, and the dysfunctionality for years, I mightadd, of the UKBA since its inception, this decisionwas being considered. Is that right so far? Now, youare saying—Chair: Mr Sedwill, you will have to say yes or no.Hansard does not record nods, even though—Michael Ellis: Could you just say yes or no for therecord?Mark Sedwill: Yes. I would not characterise it inexactly those words, but that is broadly correct.Michael Ellis: But you agree that the decision-makingprocess has been going on for months?Mark Sedwill: Yes.

Q56 Michael Ellis: The final approval was madeonly shortly before the announcement was made; isthat effectively what you are saying? The finalapproval, not the decision, because there seems tohave been some confusion about the differencebetween deciding to do something and announcing anapproval, so you are saying the final approval, thefinal signing-off was done and then the announcementwas made very shortly thereafter?Mark Sedwill: Yes.

Q57 Michael Ellis: Presumably it is considered goodpractice to make the announcement very soon afterthe final approval so as to avoid leaks?Mark Sedwill: That is part of the reason, but, as Iexplained a few moments ago, with the proximity ofthe Easter recess, the big speeches that have beenmade, it made sense to announce this today.

Q58 Michael Ellis: So, it was the right sequence forthis announcement because of other speeches andbecause otherwise the House is about to go into twoand a half weeks of recess. So it was a calculatedand appropriate decision in all the circumstances; aproperly considered decision?Mark Sedwill: Yes, I think so.Chair: Sorry, only “think”?Mark Sedwill: Yes.Chair: You are worrying us here.Mark Sedwill: Yes.Michael Ellis: I think you do agree, don’t you?

Mark Sedwill: I do, yes. Mr Ellis, I agree, this was—Chair: Mr Ellis has worked hard on this question, andI think a yes or a no is better than anything else.Mark Sedwill: For the record, this was a properlyconsidered and appropriate decision.

Q59 Michael Ellis: Yes, but the thrust of my point isthe differentiation between these processes, thedecision-making processes in something like thiscannot be made on the back of an envelope; this hasto take months to go through the complexities andthe legalities of it, and you are confirming that that isthe case?Mark Sedwill: Indeed.

Q60 Michael Ellis: You have had discussions goingback months with the Home Secretary and othersabout it, is that right?Mark Sedwill: Yes.

Q61 Michael Ellis: Good. So, then the final approvalwas made and the announcement was made veryshortly thereafter?Mark Sedwill: Yes.

Q62 Michael Ellis: Right. This is all about process,which is fascinating, but the reason why this decisionhas been made is that the UKBA has been afundamentally dysfunctional organisation; it has beenmonolithic. Would you agree with that? The manyhard-working staff within the organisation have beenlet down by its failed structure. Do you agree withthat? The structure of it has been inherently unsound.Mark Sedwill: That is why the Home Secretary haschosen to address just that question.

Q63 Michael Ellis: So, the essence of this decisionis about improving security at our borders; and do youbelieve in your position as Permanent Secretary at theHome Office, and do you believe, Mr Whiteman, inyour position, that this decision will strengthensecurity at the border?Mark Sedwill: This decision, as part of a process ofmodernisation, will do just that, including the earlierdecision to create the Border Force and of course thesuccessful implementation of the decision the HomeSecretary set out, yes.

Q64 Michael Ellis: Is it also a correct analysis tosuggest that by splitting this organisation in the waythat we have been talking about and theannouncement that we have heard made, this isadopting something of, by its very nature, a moretargeted approach than the UKBA—which as I say, Ihave described as a rather monolithic organisation—so you seem to have a situation going forward nowwhere legitimate visitors should be able to passthrough legally more easily than they have been ableto hitherto and abusers of the system can be dealt withappropriately? That is the essence behind thisdecision?Mark Sedwill: Indeed. Absolutely.Michael Ellis: Thank you very much.Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Ellis. That wasvery helpful.



Q65 Bridget Phillipson: I broadly welcome thechanges being suggested today, although it does seema bit on the rushed side, but, amid all the structuralchange and Ministers taking a more direct role in howthings are done, can we keep the focus on the needfor cultural change in terms of what we are doing,because simply changing the names of departmentsand creating new responsibilities for people does notin and of itself deliver the cultural change that weneed to see. I appreciate there will be legislation, butlegislation of course does not of course delivercultural change in and of itself, so can you just say abit more about how this is anticipated to lead to thecultural change that we all want to see given theshortcomings that have arisen?Mark Sedwill: I think this is, with respect, the mostimportant point of substance perhaps we have touchedon today so far, because this really does underlie thereason for doing this. As the Home Secretary set out,none of these elements have really functioned aseffectively as we would like, and so in creating thenew structures—and it is just the first step, for thereasons you set out, Ms Phillipson—we will have aculture that is a customer service culture, focused ongrowth, focused on trying to work alongside UKTI,Visit Britain and others to deal with the people wewant to visit the UK, do business here and bring theirskills to the country. The aim of this is to create thatculture, that customer service culture in the new visaand immigration operation, rather like the culture Ithink we have seen created with real success in IPS,where we were able to reduce the price of the passportand we have had really strong customer service andhas been driven in some parts of it.Then secondly you have a law enforcement culture,and, as Mr Reckless pointed out earlier, that lawenforcement culture in the second command is a verydifferent kind of culture; it is a different sort oforganisation. You recruit different kinds of people toit, different skill-sets, and that needs to work veryclosely alongside other law enforcement agencies,including the new National Crime Agency.Then of course it is important just to remember thatthe Border Force, although that was brought out in thefirst phase of this change, has an important job to doas well, and one of the successes of the merger intowhat Mr Ellis described as a monolith was bringingtogether Customs and Immigration at the border, andthat has been a very real success.Chair: Very helpful.Mark Sedwill: Sorry, just one final point, MrChairman. The fourth point about culture is the pointthat Mr Whiteman made earlier: that we need HomeOffice systems and law enforcement systemsgenerally, both IT, but people and individuals andcasework as well, to integrate much more effectively.One of the things that struck me ever since I took thisjob is I go around different parts of the Home Office,police forces and so on, and their systems do not, asyou know, operate with each other very effectively.There are bottlenecks and glitches and mismatchesand overlaps and all the rest of it, and so that systemsmanagement, that systems integration, is another partof the culture of this, and it is probably in some ways

the least obvious but perhaps the most important partof the change.

Q66 Bridget Phillipson: We do need to see thechange you are talking about in terms of visas and itbeing clear that Britain is open for business, that wewant to attract people to come here and that theyshould receive a good level of customer service, butcan I also ask that that same focus on cultural changeis also applied to how we deal with asylumapplications, because there still remain big problemsin that system? So, I would just ask that when thatcultural change is being considered, clearly the HomeSecretary has set out her focus on visas and wantingto make Britain competitive, the somewhat hiddenaspects of asylum applications, where we also need tosee cultural change, are included—and I hope that agreater separation between enforcement and decision-making might support that cultural change.Mark Sedwill: I think the Home Secretary picked upprecisely that point in the House this afternoon, andyou are absolutely right, as I think Mr Ellis was alsoindicating: institutional culture is the most importantpart of delivering the right kind of system. We haveto get that right, and we believe this change willfacilitate that across the whole range of the business,including asylum, absolutely.

Q67 Bridget Phillipson: One complaint that we as aCommittee have raised consistently has been about thecorrespondence that Members of Parliament receive.Obviously we have seen improvement in the level ofinformation received by the Committee, but, nowMinisters are more hands-on and directly responsible,can we expect to see improvements in thecorrespondence and timeliness that Members ofParliament can expect to receive?Mark Sedwill: That is very much our aim, and I thinkthat as Ministers demand—as I say, I can’t quite yetgive you an answer on exactly which letters theMinister would now reply to as opposed to officials. Iwould expect to see some shift in the boundary there,but they will both still need to be involved, and yes,certainly our aim is to improve public servicegenerally, our service standards generally, not just tothe applicant, but to MPs and others with an interest.

Q68 Chair: When the Home Secretary referred to“closed, secretive and defensive” she was not talkingabout the buildings; she was talking about the culturethat you just mentioned.Mark Sedwill: Yes, Mr Vaz.Chair: But it seems to us, Mr Sedwill, that the samepeople who currently are involved in the Agency areall going to get jobs in the new units that are beingcreated. We have heard that Mr Whiteman is going tobe Head of Transition. We have heard that the fivepeople who he has given a job to, members of theexecutive board, are all going to keep their jobs in thenew organisation; they are not being told that theyhave to go. Maybe you can confirm this: did you tellUKBA staff that they will still be doing the same jobin the same place and with the same colleagues forthe same boss? Were those your words?



Mark Sedwill: I see, Mr Chairman, that an internalcommunication to the Home Office has already madeit into the media and—Chair: This is a Select Committee. We are not themedia. This is a Select Committee of the House.Mark Sedwill: No, no, I know, but I am aware ofwhere it has come from. Indeed, yes, yes.Chair: Did you say that they would still be doing thesame job in the same place with the same colleaguesfor the same boss?Mark Sedwill: Yes.

Q69 Chair: So, what is going to change? It soundsvery odd to me. The Home Secretary has called it“closed, secretive and defensive”. When you havetalked in answer to Bridget Phillipson about a changeof culture, you said it was the only point of substanceyou felt we have raised today, and yet you are tellingthe staff that it is the same people in the same jobswith the same boss. It does not sound to me like muchis changing except branding.Mark Sedwill: Mr Chairman, first, if I may say so,you are taking a single sentence out of acommunication that I was seeking to explain—Chair: Tell us more, then.Mark Sedwill:—to our own staff the overall changesto the Home Office, but in a sense the answer is inone of the questions you have already put, and theHome Secretary put in the House. We don’t believethe problem with the Agency is the individuals whowork for it. The structures and culture of the Agencyhas resulted in this closed, secretive and defensiveculture, and it is in making the institutional changesthat we will enable the individuals of the Agency todo a better job. But most people—

Q70 Chair: So, everyone is guaranteed their job?Mark Sedwill: No, Mr Chairman, not everyone andnot forever, of course not, but we are talking about anagency here of 17,000 people, we are talking aboutthe Home Office, and this was a communication to theHome Office from me generally, because we aremaking some other changes to the Home Office, notjust the Agency, at the same time. The vast majorityof people will next month and beyond be doingexactly what I set out there.

Q71 Chair: Sorry, the same job?Mark Sedwill: Yes.

Q72 Chair: The Committee supports what the HomeSecretary has done. I congratulated her in the Housetoday, but it only matters if things are going to change,so if you are not changing the buildings and you arenot changing the people, how do you change a culturethat is “closed, secretive and defensive”? Who makesthe culture in an organisation other than the peoplewho run it?Mark Sedwill: The culture is both the people and theorganisation, and by—Chair: But you are not changing either.Mark Sedwill: Yes, we are. Yes, we are. We arechanging the overall structure—this is part of themodernisation process—and there will be some verysignificant changes to come, in particular, since you

clearly have my note to the staff, as there areelsewhere in Government, to the corporate servicesfunctions across the Home Office that will be properlyintegrated, and I would expect to see those deliversignificant efficiencies, some of which will meet theoverall spending constraint and some of which willrelease people into front-line functions. So it is notthat forever everybody will be doing exactly whatthey are doing now, but, for the reasons you have setout, the announcement today by the Home Secretarywill not have been expected yet by staff, because ofcourse we have to tell Parliament first.Chair: Of course.Mark Sedwill: Therefore what we have to do isexplain to staff what this means for them and whatthis means for them in the immediate future, just asthe change to the Border Force did, is that most ofthem will be doing the same job, but we will expectmany of them to do it in a different way, and that isthe big change that we will—

Q73 Chair: Faster. You want them to do it fasterand more—Mark Sedwill: Faster, better, more responsive andmore effective.

Q74 Chair: So, it is a motivational thing?Mark Sedwill: No, it is not just that. It is a systemselement as well.Chair: Two quick questions; I know you have to go,and we have kept you long enough, I think.

Q75 Dr Huppert: Just following up, Rob, you wereextremely coy about what your future might hold andwhat the role might be, but I have just had an emailsent 35 minutes ago from you to all UKBA partnerssaying that you will be, “Leading a new Home Office-wide operational systems management command,bringing together strategy and assurance, operationsand resources and organisational development”. Ipresume you knew about that and just were not tellingthe Committee. Is that accurate?Rob Whiteman: I believe I did tell the Committeeexactly that in my evidence earlier. I said I wouldbe taking a role in order to ensure that the systemsmanagement across these operational areas is properlyconducted, and Mr Sedwill has also said how I wouldbe leading the transition from UKBA to the neworganisations. If I may, Chairman, I would say thatthe important thing is I think the message that hasbeen given to staff today is the right one. There ischange, and the Home Secretary believes thatchanging the governance and the structure of UKBAwill improve performance through a focus of differentcommands with different cultures, but the message tofront-line staff is that tomorrow they carry on with thesame job and not to unduly alarm them, because thework that they are carrying out so vitally carries onwithin new management structures I think is entirelythe right message to give.Chair: To be fair to Dr Huppert, though you did saysome of those words, the memo that you sent to yourstaff was quite specific, more than you have told theCommittee, but you have now clarified it, and we arevery grateful for that clarification.



Q76 Mr Winnick: Given the leaked memos, the onequoted by the Chair—and, as you said, it had beenleaked, and what we were discussing earlier on whenthe announcements were made and so on—I am justwondering, Mr Sedwill, bearing in mind the HomeSecretary described UKBA, “closed, secretive anddefensive culture”, whether you really think the twonew organisations are being set up in the right andappropriate way?Mark Sedwill: I think they are being set up in the bestway we can, and, as Mr Ellis pointed out earlier, inthe private sector, when you are dealing withshareholders, you have the luxury of more controlover the media scrutiny and the communicationsenvironment. I think, as the emails you are readinghave just demonstrated, one of the reasons we haveto seek to inform Parliament at the earliest possibleopportunity once a decision of this significance hasbeen taken is that otherwise something will leak outand the Committee will very rightly ask us why thiswas not communicated to Parliament. Once thedecision was taken to make this statement today, weworked very hard and pretty quickly to get out thecommunications to staff and our key stakeholders aswell in order to be able to give them the bestinformation that we can, recognising that there is stillquite a lot of the details to be filled in in order toensure that we land the actual changes of substancethat this Committee is seeking, and rightly so.

Q77 Mr Winnick: One further question: when theSelect Committee decides to have a hearing, as wehave done over the years, on UKBA, can we take itthat you, from time to time, if not regularly, will alsobe appearing before us in view of the fact that you arechairing the appropriate board?Mark Sedwill: Absolutely. I would expect, MrWinnick, you to ask me and scrutinise me on all ofthe Home Office’s operations and policy and services,and of course I appear before the Public AccountsCommittee as well on value-for-money issues. I amdelighted to appear before you at your convenience.

Q78 Mr Winnick: At the end of it all, you will beresponsible more than anyone who will be appointedto the new organisation? You will be the ultimatehead, subject of course to the Home Secretary. Thebuck will stop with you.Mark Sedwill: Yes, subject of course to the Minister’soverall responsibility, but that is the case now. I amthe principal accounting officer for the whole of theHome Office. As Chief Executive, Mr Whiteman isaccounting officer for the Agency, so he is alreadyunder my management, and I already bear thatresponsibility as a whole. As we have discussed, andas I think you pointed out in the House, Mr Chairman,the Agency was never a genuine arm’s length body,partly because of the continuing policy and case-workresponsibility Ministers retained.From that point of view, my responsibilities are thesame as before, but inevitably I will be more directlyconcerned in the implementation of this programmethan I would have been had we not made the changes.

Q79 Chair: This Committee has seen threePermanent Secretaries at the Home Office; of coursethe last one went off to the National Trust verydramatically. We hope that you will be around longenough to see this transformation take place, not juston immigration but also on policing. Do you thinkthat your role as ambassador for Afghanistan preparedyou for your period as Permanent Secretary at theHome Office?Mark Sedwill: There was a reference in one of thenews articles at the time along the lines, if I can dealwith the Taliban, I may be equipped. I believe I am.Although I have only done the job for a couple ofmonths, and I hope I do do it for four or five years,because I think that is the right kind of period for aPermanent Secretary—but of course that is out of myhands—I do intend to try to oversee thetransformation of the Home Office. As you will seefrom the emails you have about the announcementtoday on the UKBA, which of course is by far themost newsworthy component of this, it is only onepart of an overall programme to modernise the HomeOffice and make it more responsive to the needs ofthe time, and I want to see that through.

Q80 Chair: You have been very helpful, because youhave come at very short notice to tell us about thesechanges, but you can probably accept from thequestions the Committee has asked you that we areconcerned about the need for a smooth transition. Ipersonally, and I think Members of the Committeewho spoke in the House today, support what the HomeSecretary has done. We are troubled a little by thesequence of events over the last few days, and we maywell write to the Home Secretary to follow up someof this sequence because we find that it may well havebeen a little chaotic in the way in which things weredone. But we accept your explanation that you neededto get this out before Parliament rose and that gaveyou a very small window. We accept that this wasdone because of two major speeches by the DeputyPrime Minister and the Prime Minister, and of course,though we cannot claim credit for this with our SelectCommittee report, we are delighted that you have readthe report, because this Committee intends to continueto scrutinise the Home Office in exactly the same way;even though the name has changed of these agenciesand it is part of your remit now, we will do it inexactly the same way. I think under Mr Whiteman,and I have to say this, the quality of information thatwe have received from the UKBA has improvedimmeasurably from the letters we used to receive fromLin Homer, so we are getting there in terms ofinformation. Indeed on the last occasion, MrWhiteman, you actually sent me your letter on time,but sadly the woman who co-ordinates this has nowbeen promoted and is now no longer doing this job.But as far as we are concerned, proper scrutiny, timelyinformation—we are all on the same side here, andwe hope that you will find that we are allies in whatyou are trying to do. I know you have very importantbusiness that you interrupted to come here, MrSedwill; we are most grateful.Mark Sedwill: Thank you.



Chair: We are going to carry on a little bit longerwith Mr Whiteman, because we feel we have not donehim justice for the other work that he is doing, butthank you very much, and we look forward to seeingyou on 30 April.Mark Sedwill: Mr Chairman, thank you. I lookforward to that as well. Please accept my apologies ifa somewhat chaotic explanation gave the impressionof a chaotic process; it genuinely was not.Chair: No, we got there in the end.Mark Sedwill: It genuinely was not, and that is myfault for not explaining it well enough under theCommittee’s scrutiny.Chair: Well, it is your first time. You will be betternext time.Mark Sedwill: I apologise for that. But thank you verymuch for your time.

Q81 Chair: Thank you, Mr Sedwill. Could we haveMr Hayes here please to the dais? We are going to getthrough the rest of these matters very quickly and, MrWhiteman, we rely on you; since you are one of thegreat survivors of all these re-organisations, you mustbe doing something well, so well done. But we wantquick answers, because we have factual questions.The first thing we want to do is to show you our lastreport; I am sure you have seen it. As you know, wehave at the end of the report a supergrid of backlogs,which of course is one of the important aspects of thework that we do. We want you to look at that grid andwe want you to take it away with you; you mightregard this as homework. Could you please write tous and tell us if there are any other backlogs that arenot on that grid that we need to be aware of, simplybecause we do not want to be in the same position aswe were in respect of your predecessor of finding outthere were certain items that were not told to thisCommittee. So, you can either tell us now, or you cantake that away and during the April recess write to usand tell us further figures.Rob Whiteman: I will do that gladly, Chairman. Ihope I can help in two ways: one is I will gladly giveyou any broader information that you want, but also Iwill help to clarify some of the figures on this table,which are probably not backlogs, and I hope I canadvise the Committee accordingly. One of the figureson here—for example, the applications not processedin time—relates to details we gave you of work beingout of service standard, not that it has not been done,so that work has been done and does not form part ofour work. Similarly, one of the other figures givenhere duplicates one of the other figures, so I think Ican give you clarification of this as well on thequestion that you asked.

Q82 Chair: Because looking at the figures, you havejust written to us in your letter and informed us thatthe number of cases in the live asylum cohort has goneup from 28,500 to 33,500, an increase of 5,000, andthe live immigration cases have gone up from 4,000to 7,000, an increase of 3,000 cases. The number ofcases that are not loaded on to the computer we findirritating and upsetting, because as Members ofParliament we write to the UKBA through ouraccount managers and we ask for progress on cases,

and they write back and they do not know about thesecases. It is because they have not been loaded on tothe computer.Rob Whiteman: When I appeared at the Committeelast time, Chairman, you will remember that I told youthat in temporary migration the cases not loaded onthe system was 50,000, and, allowing for temporaryand permanent migration together, that stood at59,000, but I gave you an assurance that we wouldput a plan of action in place. I am pleased to tell youthat those figures now stand at 5,000 1cases.

Q83 Chair: So, not 61,000?Rob Whiteman: That was at the time of writing. I toldyou we would have a plan of action. As of today, thenumber of cases not loaded on the system is 5,000.

Q84 Chair: Down from 61,000?Rob Whiteman: To 5,000, yes.

Q85 Chair: How did you do that, and why was it notdone before?Rob Whiteman: As I advised you last time, we put aplan of action in place in order to focus on differentelements of the backlog at different times. We havebrought down radically the cases not loaded on thesystem. I am also pleased to tell you that forsponsorship and Tiers 2 and 5 we are within servicestandard within a week or two. We are making verygood progress on Tier 4, and there are two areas ofwork where it will take longer to be back in servicestandard, but these are areas where we have seenpotential abuse of the system in working on thebacklog, and you will be aware that the Governmentmade rule changes to Tier 1 before Christmas. Wehave also set a different service standard for humanrights family cases because in working on the backlogwe see that there is a fair amount of abuse takingplace. I hope the figures I have just given you in termsof those areas show that we are back in servicestandard and that cases are now loaded on the systemin time. This is progress since last time. The HomeOffice now has much left to do, but we have madesome progress.

Q86 Chair: You have made progress if you havereduced it from 61,000 down to 5,000. I just wonderwhy they went ahead and abolished you, since youwere making such a big inroad into the backlog. Butwe will not reopen that again. We will give you a littlebit of a rest.Mr Hayes, we want to talk to you about theInternational Directorate, which we regard as one ofthe best parts of the UKBA, so we hope in all thistransition and modernisation, and all this kind of stuff,that we do not do any damage to it in the process. Igather you have been appointed as the ActingDirector.Simon Hayes: That is right.

Q87 Chair: We have just come back from anoverseas trip where we looked at your immigrationhubs in Dubai, we looked at Doha, and we also looked1 Witness note: this figure fluctuates on a daily basis as new

cases come in and uninput cases are put on the system.



at Abu Dhabi. I personally was very impressed withwhat I saw. We looked at the visa application centres,we were very impressed with the work that was goingon there. You certainly have a very good relationshipwith them. Visa times were processed very quickly,and we want to pass on our thanks to Carol Doughtyand Mandy Ivemy and all the other members of staffwho helped us.Can I ask you about the decision to remove the rightof appeal for family visitors and the concern that thisCommittee has about what might be in the future areal problem? The Home Secretary in the Houseyesterday, in the Home Office questions, repeated thisview that the reason why there are so many appeals isthat the information only comes in after theapplication has been refused. Do you foresee anyproblems—and be careful in your answer because wewill use it against you if there are any—as a result ofthe abolition of the right of appeal and the fact thatpeople will either be asked to reapply and thereforeput more pressure on the entry clearance officers orthey will come to MPs and we will write in and askwhy it has been refused? Do you see any possibilityof any difficulties?Simon Hayes: I have to say, Mr Chairman, purelyfrom an operational perspective, leaving aside therights or wrongs of whether there should be a right ofappeal, I think we believe that will be manageable, inpart because we believe that it is easier and quicker toprocess a new application, especially if new evidenceis being submitted with the application, than it is toadminister the current appeal system.

Q88 Chair: Do you have any concerns about thecurrent way in which the visa applications are madeand the relationship between the visa applicationcentres and the embassies?Simon Hayes: I do not think we have huge problems.I think it has been quite a success story. We were thefirst country in the world to introduce a system wherewe outsourced as much of the process as we havedone and we think it has worked well, and othercountries have followed our lead on it. I hope fromwhat you saw in the Gulf, that you saw evidence thatit was working well. We get good feedback from ourcustomers, and we work very hard alongside ourpartners to make sure that the relationships are in theright place.

Q89 Chair: We were very impressed. One of thethings we pressed on your predecessors is the need formore face-to-face interviews, and the worry is that ifyou have more face-to-face interviews then that willrequire more staff and more staff are not available.Tell us about what is happening in Sheffield and thenew centre you set up there to deal with overseascases.Simon Hayes: As the Committee will know, theHome Secretary asked us to undertake many moreinterviews this year than we have ever done before.In order to do that, in recognition of the issue that youhave described about making sure that we can keepthe process running, not make it too inconvenient forapplicants, we put in place a new way of doing aparticular type of interview, a credibility interview,

whereby we will run those interviews by videoconference from a new hub in Sheffield to ouroutsourced visa application centres, and people willbe interviewed at the point at which they give theirbiometrics.The results of those interviews will not leadimmediately to a decision. The report of the interviewwill go to the decision maker at the overseas hubwhere the expertise will still reside, and they will beable to consider that report as part of the evidence incoming to a decision or—and I think this isimportant—they will be able to ask that applicant onthe basis of concerns that might have been raised fromthe report of the initial credibility interview to comein to the hub for a face-to-face, more in-depthinterview at that point.So, that is the way in which we are trying to squarethe circle of doing more interviews with aninfrastructure that perhaps was not quite built for itbut most importantly not slowing down the processfor the applicant so that we can keep up with ourcustomer service processing.

Q90 Chair: We did put to the Immigration Ministerthe thought that we needed a more robust reviewgiven that the right of appeal is being taken away—that between refusal and reapplication there needs tobe a more robust approach—and he said he wouldlook at this, and we certainly are keen to see whetherthis could be done; either a hub in London orsomewhere else in the United Kingdom onshore,where some of these cases can be reviewed. Thedifficulty is telling applicants again and again, “Applyagain, pay your fee, put in your new documents”,whereas perhaps one or two documents is all that isrequired, because I have not seen any evidence thatECOs or ECMs ring up applicants and say, “Actuallythis document is missing and therefore submit thedocument and I will grant the visa”; this just does nothappen. So I do not know where this anecdotalevidence comes from. What we find is refusal, theycome and see their Members of Parliament, we writein, and the paper trail begins again. So, we put it toMinisters.Rob Whiteman: Ministers are looking at this. As MrHayes said, we think it is in the interests of theapplicant that the appeal is coming to an end. Peoplecan reapply for a visa, and we will process that in 15days, an appeals process can take eight months andvery often in the majority of cases where it does goto appeal it is on the basis of new information that hasbeen submitted. As the Home Secretary said to theHouse yesterday, while the appeal right will go, wherewe receive letters from MPs, we will of course alwayslook to ensure that there is a robust check of the case.If our decision has been made on the basis that peoplehave not provided certain evidence and they have, ifthere is an administrative mistake on our part, then ofcourse we would look at the case again. We arelooking at the arrangements for dealing with MPs’correspondence, as I know the Minister has told you,and on the whole we will look at having hubs andthose account managers that work with your officersall the time having responsibility for those letters,rather than passing them into the business where it



may take longer. So, we are looking at strengtheningthe account manager role that supports you andmaking sure that we can look at those cases robustly.

Q91 Chair: Finally from me, Mr Hayes, it isimportant that one understands that when people cometo see Members of Parliament in their surgeries theythink we are the last resort. They have already triedother methods to try to sort issues out. But at themoment, the relationship between London and Dohaor Dubai or Mumbai—what we picked up from theECOs is they are put under a lot of pressure to replyto MPs’ representations in two days, whereas thesystem does not take two days to get back to us.Secondly, that decisions to grant visas are sent by postand the ECOs were saying if they came electronically,then they would be able to grant the visas quicker, andthat would cut down on the correspondence fromMPs. Would you look at that please?Simon Hayes: Yes, absolutely.

Q92 Dr Huppert: Firstly, the Chair is absolutelyright to refer to the importance of a review processworking, if I can emphasise that. I think it needs to beindependent of MPs’ involvement. I had a constituentwhose brother could not visit him because he did nothave enough money to pay for the expenses andbecause they were concerned, because of the civil warin Libya, he might not go back, which both sound likereasonable explanations, except for the fact that theECO had clearly miscalculated his income, because ifyou look at the two numbers and divide one by theother you do not get the third answer, and he hadnever been to Libya in his life so was rather surprisedthat it could have any bearing. There needs to be asimple way. It should not require an MP to say, “Hangon, there is something wrong here.” I presume youwould agree with that; I am not looking for detailedanswers on that.I would like to ask about the areas where things stillare not going so well. Mr Whiteman highlighted thefact that some areas are going well, but if you look atTier 1 and Tier 4 in-country visa applications, there isnot a pretty picture. The latest figures you have givenus, Mr Whiteman, in the letter say 10% of Tier 1 visasare processed within four weeks against a servicestandard of 90%; Tier 4 we are at 21%. That is prettyappallingly poor, particularly given that Tier 1 issupposed to be the brightest and the best. What istaking so long to make a decision?Simon Hayes: I think that refers to the in-countryapplications.Rob Whiteman: As we have said, Dr Huppert, wehave had backlogs of work in temporary migration.Since the time of writing to you some of those areasare now more up to date—as I covered earlier, and Iwill not repeat my answer.On Tier 1, what we see is a differentiation where weare seeing use of Tier 1 as perhaps an application oflast resort where applications to other parts of theimmigration system have failed, and what oftenhappens with immigration case-work, as you willknow, is that where policy tightens up in one area inorder to close down the abuse of that area, theapplicants can move to another. Where we are

confident that the Tier 1 application is well founded,we will be processing these within service standardby after Easter.Where we wish to use the new rules that were setbefore Christmas for a credibility interview, becausewe have seen a very large spike in Tier 1 applicationsfor switching where we can see by the nature of themthat there is abuse taking place with a high refusalrate, then they will take longer to process, and wethought it important not to process them until the rulechange was made. We will now process thoseapplications, and we will deal with them before thesummer. But it is important, Dr Huppert, to say thatwhere through the triaging of cases that we make, wethink that this is a Tier 1 application that isstraightforward and we do not think there are anyconcerns where we need the new rules, then they arebeing processed as of now, as of the other side ofEaster, within the usual service standard, and we havetriaged that work and we are treating it differently.

Q93 Dr Huppert: The Immigration Minister in hisnow infamous written statement on Thursday saidthat, “I expect the Agency to be operating withinservice standards by spring 2013”. Spring is late incoming, I agree. Exactly when do you think springwill be, and when do you think the Ministerreasonably expects you to be operating withinservice standards?Rob Whiteman: Other than the Tier 1 issue that I havejust spoken to you about, and the human rightsapplications of family, where again we have separatedfamily into four different areas, and one of those areasis where we see that abuse is taking place—in factwith a very high refusal rate, over 60%—we will beback to within service standard within weeks, afterEaster, and we have made good progress and theworkload has come down.In Tier 1 where we wish to interview and in Tier 4,human rights applications2, we will take beyond thespring and probably into the summer, in order to getthem back within service standard.

Q94 Dr Huppert: We look forward to seeing that.What about people who have been here legally for 10years applying for leave to remain, because I have aconstituent—I just had all these people who came tosee me on Saturday—who applied on 3 September2012, having been here perfectly legally for 10 years,with a highly skilled job, still waiting for an answer,and a contact at the Borders Agency said, “We willtry to get you an answer by the end of May.” Again Ithink this is a four-week service standard. Is this aone-off, or is that also going to be caught up with bythe end of Easter?Rob Whiteman: I cannot answer on this individualcase.Dr Huppert: Not on the individual but on other caseslike it.Rob Whiteman: What I have said is that other thanthose family applications and other than where webelieve switching has occurred within Tier 1 we will2 Witness note: These human rights applications are family,

not Tier 4 applications.



be up to date within weeks, the other side of Easter,and we have made good progress.Dr Huppert: We will check all of those, I am sure.Rob Whiteman: I will write to the Committee,Chairman, as you asked me to do.Chair: Thank you.

Q95 Dr Huppert: When it comes to people whohave paid the huge extra premiums—it could be wellover £1,000 for premier service with a 24-hourscale—will you be able to hit that 24-hour turnaroundas well within a few weeks?Rob Whiteman: Yes, we will. We have had somedifficulties with premium appointments where agentshave—I think this has been reported in the media—tried to harvest those appointments in order to get holdof them in advance, and we have put three measuresin place: one around rule changes to take more of thefee upfront; secondly, IT changes on the websites orweb addresses where that harvesting comes from; andthirdly, some other operational issues, which probablyI will not go into detail here, because it deals withovercoming the abuse that has taken place. But giventhose three things, together with extending theopening hours for some of our PEOs to 12 hours from8.00am to 8.00pm with more appointments available,I would expect by the end of May/early June theproblems that we have had with premiumappointments to have been finally resolved by bothdealing with the demand issues and ending the waythat agents have been acting, but also with increasingthe supply of premium appointments.

Q96 Dr Huppert: Just to be clear, that means by, Ithink you said, the end of May people will be ableto get premium appointments reasonably rather thanhaving to desperately hunt for them, and they will getthe decision made within the 24 hours they havepaid for—Rob Whiteman: Within the service standard.Dr Huppert:—which they are currently not doing?Rob Whiteman: Yes. That has been quite a largeoperation in order to put that right. As I say, it hasinvolved people—I use the word “attacking” our sitesin order to harvest appointments.

Q97 Mark Reckless: Mr Hayes, the InternationalDirectorate has had a better record of meeting andindeed sometimes exceeding its performancestandards. Is it right for the most recent quarter thatyou have been able to hit the target of processing 98%within 30 days for every class of visa application?Simon Hayes: I believe so. I know that we have hitour 15-day target for 90%, and I believe we hit the98% for 30 days as well.

Q98 Mark Reckless: Why do you believe it is thatthe International Directorate has developed a betterrecord of hitting those targets than has been the casefor the in-country applications?Simon Hayes: There are a range of factors that apply.First of all, in-country applications are different typesof visas, different types of cases, and they do notprocess visitor visas by definition. There are aspectsof the risk associated with them that are slightly

different. It is important to point out they have nothad the benefit in-country of the visa applicationcentres that we were just talking about that havehelped with the processing and the streaming ofapplications.But also it is fair to say that over the years we havedeveloped some systems for managing cases that arequite effective, in part because for very good andjustifiable reasons we are not allowed to get away withany major delays in our out-of-country processingbecause of the problems that will cause for withpeople coming to the country, which would be a majorissue. So, we spend a lot of time on it, and what wewould like to do now—and I am sure Mr Whitemanwill have something to say about this—is try to spreadsome of that best practice from overseas to the in-country operation. In fact, we have begun that workin Sheffield. We have a new team in Sheffield, whichdoes a very small number of out-of-country settlementapplications at the moment, and we have tried to usesome of that team to review some of the processes inSheffield, while they overhaul that operation.Rob Whiteman: I would add to that that indeed MrHayes has been very helpful in terms of talkingthrough with our operations in Sheffield concerningtemporary migration some of the techniques that areused overseas for streaming and improvingproductivity to build that into the way that we workin our in-country operation. As you say, Mr Reckless,there is a difference there. That is partly explained, asMr Hayes said, by a different cohort and a differenttype of intake, but there is good practice definitelythat we can learn from our overseas operations andbuild that into in-country.

Q99 Mark Reckless: You mentioned cohort andintake, and I assume that was a reference to the visaapplications, but I wonder: is there also a differentcohort intake, perhaps type of staff, that you are usingin the in-country versus out-of-country and whetherthere are any lessons one might apply from that?Rob Whiteman: Mr Hayes and I discussed this a greatdeal. Looking at the difference in productivity figures,our overseas staff do get through quite a lot of casesbut maintain good decision quality, and in ourtemporary migration operations actually they are morecomplex cases, and we do have to carry out morechecks, but in terms of some of the culture around theability to make a good decision quickly and to notnecessarily over-engineer the way it is done becauseit might not add to the final quality of the decision—we think there is definitely something there, and wethink it is interesting to compare the two and to getthe managers to speak.

Q100 Mark Reckless: There was a pretty criticalreport by John Vine in 2010 of the visa processinghub in Abu Dhabi. When the Committee recentlyvisited, we were very impressed both by the moralebut also by the seemingly efficient operation of theservice there, and I wonder if I might just ask you topass on the compliments of the Committee followingthat visit.Rob Whiteman: I will gladly do that. Both of us willdo that and I know your visit was greatly welcomed



and the interest that you showed in the visiting visahub, and we will pass that on, Mr Reckless.Chair: We were a little jealous of the Saudis; theyhave a very good visa application centre, which VFShas just opened for them. I am not saying that weshould compete with it, because obviously we do nothave as much money as the Saudi ArabianGovernment, but it was certainly the place wherepeople could go and visit. So, yes, I endorse fullywhat Mr Reckless has said. It is an excellent operationout there.

Q101 Mr Winnick: We live in the electronic age, asI am constantly told by those who would say they areyounger than I am, but what is difficult to understandis why is it necessary to send hard copies between theUK and the overseas post, which causes further delayin an organisation, which of course has been criticisedso harshly, certainly by us and by others for delays.Why not do it all electronically? Is it a particularpurpose in resorting to hard copy?Rob Whiteman: No, I think your challenge is a verygood one, Mr Winnick. We see the need in order tomake the manual systems and the hard-copy systemswork well—Mr Winnick: I think electronic things are going onbetween us.Rob Whiteman:—but as we strengthen our IT and westrengthen our contracts, then working electronicallyor digitally and scanning documents in to supportonline applications will happen. The majority of ourvisa applications are made online, and so, being ableto deal with the supporting documentation digitallyrather than pass hard copies around is, of course, thedirection we want to go in, and it is aboutstrengthening the resilience and capability of ourunderlying systems, as Mr Sedwill said earlier, andindeed as the Home Secretary said in her speechearlier in the House. We recognise that some of thesystems that underpin our operations needimprovement and we think, as we transform thosesystems, that Mr Hayes and other operationalmanagers will be able to have better tools at theirdisposal.

Q102 Mr Winnick: Electronic communications havebeen around for quite a time now; 75%, 80% at leastof all the correspondence I receive from constituentsis emails. When my colleagues were in Dubai theydiscovered—I was not with them—that much of theprocessing was still being done in hard copy, so canwe work on the basis that with the new organisation,and what have you, that all this will be changedpretty quickly?Rob Whiteman: Yes, Mr Winnick. It was one of thefour pillars that the Home Secretary set out earlier inthe House as to why change is needed and what hasgone wrong with the UKBA. Please be assured thatwe are absolutely clear that our IT and our systemsneed improvement. They will not change overnight. Agreat deal of work needs to be made in order tochange those systems. We do recognise the challengethat you set.

Q103 Chair: Mr Whiteman, I am sorry to interrupt;we are not talking about pillars here. This is not somegreat European Union event. All Mr Winnick wantsto do, and I am delighted to hear it from him, becausehe, like me, is not very good at this stuff, is just sendan email. You do not have to wait for it to changeovernight, just send an email. Can we not send anemail when someone has been successful in getting avisa rather than putting it in the post?Rob Whiteman: All I want to do is answer yes,Chairman, that we want to be able to do that and willwork toward it.Chair: Excellent, that is a perfect answer.Mr Winnick: Work towards it? I do not think thatshows much optimism.

Q104 Chair: As you know, we have been reading outyour emails today, so it is quite simple to do. MrHayes, this could be your great moment in history.They could be putting up a statue to you. Rather thanwalking towards the great pillars of change, will youlook at sending an email to say, “Your visa has beengranted”? This is a humble request from Members ofthe Select Committee.Mr Winnick: You have got round to the typewriterby now, I take it.Simon Hayes: Yes, we will take that on board,definitely.

Q105 Dr Huppert: Can I just have a look at a coupleof issues around asylum cases? I will not go throughall the details—your response previously says somethings did not add up—but what I do not understandis what is happening with the wait for six monthsbecause it seems, from the figures that you provided,there has been a very substantial increase for about3,500 asylum cases waiting more than six months foran initial decision to something more like 6,000, inthe latest quarter, of people waiting more than sixmonths for an initial decision. I hope you would agreeit is unacceptable. We should be trying to make thesedecisions correctly and quickly, and people should notbe waiting six months for an answer from the BorderAgency.Rob Whiteman: I understand that point and agreewith it, Dr Huppert. It is interesting, is it not, that,looking at the figures that I give you, while theconclusions within six months are not as strong,conclusions within 12 months have continued toimprove, in fact up from 56% in 2010/11 to 63% in2011/12, so in terms of dealing with things within 12months we have got better, even allowing for the factthat the figures for six months are less strong. Whatwe need to do is have a balanced work in progresswhere the cases that we can deal with in three monthswe deal with more effectively.But I do of course understand the point that you made,that a priority of trying to deal with these cases in atimely way is important.

Q106 Dr Huppert: Sorry, you are just talking aboutconclusions, whereas I am talking about initialdecisions, and there is a difference between those two.We can come on to conclusions later if you wouldlike, but the initial decision, the first response from



the Borders Agency, is frequently taking more thansix months. Surely that is not acceptable, and that isentirely within your hands. That is not to do withwhether you can get people into another country, andit is not to do with whether people choose to leave; itis people waiting for an answer from you.Rob Whiteman: Yes, that is quite right; we arecommitted to concluding cases as quickly as possible.Dr Huppert: Yes, but the asylum initial decision.Rob Whiteman: Yes, but for the initial decisionasylum cases are often complex and require thoroughconsideration. It is important that the process is notrushed by the nature of the case and given that theintake that we have can change from year to year, itis important that we consider them properly.

Q107 Dr Huppert: You think that six months is arush to consider these applications?Rob Whiteman: No, I think you want to be better atdealing with initial decisions within six months.

Q108 Dr Huppert: Certainly my view is it is notacceptable for them to take more than six months foran initial decision.Can I just quickly ask about another issue we havediscussed, which is about Sri Lankans and Tamils,because we have discussed this in the past. Youpresumably are aware of the freedom of informationrequest that was made by Freedom from Torture,which found that there were 15 Sri Lankan nationalswho, having been rejected status here initially, weresent back to Sri Lanka and then came back here sayingthey had been tortured after they had been returnedand were then given status here. I think you have sincechanged the answer of your FOI—there should havebeen 13 rather than 15. The point is there are a numberof people who we sent back to a country who werethen tortured we have since had to let in. Do you standbehind previous Government assurances there is nosubstantiated evidence that Tamils forced to berelocated to Sri Lanka have been mistreated, becausefive days before the FOI response, the Foreign OfficeMinister, Alistair Burt, was giving reassurances to theSri Lankan press, presumably based on informationfrom you? Given that we have now accepted these 13people were in fact tortured and we have given themasylum, why were we assuring the Sri Lankans theywere not?Rob Whiteman: Dr Huppert, we have confidence thatour decision-making processes are of high quality andthat if we make returns, we believe that we have takenall proper information into consideration at that time.If subsequently other information comes to light andtherefore a reverse decision is made, it does not, withrespect, mean that the initial decision was wrong. Wemake decisions based on the information that we haveavailable to us at the time and the quality of asylumdecision making is strong. If later on we find out thatmore information has come to light or has come tolight through judicial process, which was notconsidered at the time, and therefore applicants arebrought back, we still believe that the quality of ourinitial decision is right.

Q109 Dr Huppert: In this case the extra informationis not from a judicial review process. It is the fact thatwe sent people back and they were tortured, which isquite a substantial piece of new information. Myquestion was about the Government assurances thatthere is no substantiated evidence that Tamils forciblyremoved to Sri Lanka had been mistreated, which iswhat Alistair Burt was saying, I assume based oninformation from you. Do you accept now that thereis in fact substantiated evidence that Tamils forciblyremoved to Sri Lanka have been mistreated, asevidenced by the fact we have taken 13 of them andsaid, “Yes, you can come here because you weretortured”?Rob Whiteman: The Home Office will continue tolook at information that comes to light.Dr Huppert: Such as the fact that we have let 13people back in after they were mistreated.Rob Whiteman: I would refer to what I said earlier.

Q110 Steve McCabe: Just before we move on, I justwant to ask on the back of the asylum questions, MrWhiteman, about the Case Audit and Assurance Unit.I am still writing to you—I am sure lots of otherpeople are—about folk whose cases have been sentthere and appeared to have disappeared into a blackhole. We get constant assurances that they are beingdealt with, sometimes we get told that there is anofficer looking at them, but they never come back. Iam just wondering if there is any way today you cantell us how many cases are up there being looked at,and when am I going to get some evidence that someof them are being resolved? In some ways I do notalmost care how they are resolved. I would like themresolved—either people will be given a legal andproper right to remain here or be told that right doesnot exist and, “You are going back”, but it is the factthat they seem to disappear into a black hole.Also, can I just ask, when is the Agency or the newunit within the Home Office going to start advisingpeople when they have lost their passport and otherdocuments rather than waiting for an MP to write anddiscover this? When an MP does write and discoverit, when are you going to start paying peoplecompensation for this, because this just seems to meto be a stream of work that has been generated by thefact that the Case Audit and Assurance Unit neverresolves cases, it loses documents hand over fist, andnever tells anybody until you ferret it out of them andthen it does not compensate anybody. I am notsurprised the Home Secretary said she had hadenough, because nearly everybody else has.Chair: Quick replies to those questions, please.Rob Whiteman: So the Case Assurance Unit, as youknow, Mr McCabe, is now called the Older LiveCases Unit.Steve McCabe: I know that, but your staff do notknow that in their latest letter to me.Rob Whiteman: Mr Winnick and the Committee saidto us last time we ought to call it something that itdoes on the tin, and therefore we—Steve McCabe: You should send them a memo aboutit so that they know as well.Rob Whiteman: We have tried to do that. In terms ofthe asylum cases and the migration cases that are now



left following the closure of the Controlled Archive,there is around 40,000 cases and we are workingthrough a large sample3 of those cases in order togive realistic timescales for how long those 40,000cases will now take to close, and I imagine that thenext time the Home Office gives evidence on this wewill be able to give you a better estimate.

Q111 Steve McCabe: I do not want to drag this out,but can I just check: when you are saying you areworking on a large sample in order to work out howlong it will take, what is a large sample?Rob Whiteman: I do not have those figures to hand,I will gladly write to the Committee, Mr McCabe.Steve McCabe: Would you?Rob Whiteman: Yes. The questions that you makeabout lost documents: yes, we take that very seriously.We know that in the past there have been problemswith document-tracking. We are introducing a meansof keeping better tabs on documents, including aregistry of them, which will be introduced and part ofthe improvement of the services is to make sure thatsome of the problems of document tracking iscorrected through better systems for the future.

Q112 Steve McCabe: Should people getcompensation when the documents are lost? You haveto buy another passport if the UKBA loses yours.Rob Whiteman: We will gladly consider that.Chair: Excellent, that you are considering it, notexcellent that you have given us a full reply; if youcould write to us and give us an answer, that wouldbe good.

Q113 Bridget Phillipson: Mr Whiteman, last timeyou gave evidence to the Committee you appeared tocontradict the Agency, or whoever—the HomeOffice’s own guidance on Rule 35—when yousuggested that legal representatives could makereferrals into that. Is that not rather concerning, andcan we be confident that the rules are wellunderstood?Rob Whiteman: I am sorry if I was not clear on thislast time. The point I was trying to make, and not verywell, and therefore we did have to clarify it, was thatRule 35 reports are made by medical practitioners. Itis the case that we receive other requests of a Rule 35type outside of the process, and that is the point thatI was trying to make. But for the caseworker theyhave Rule 35 reports from medical practitioners butalso, from a range of sources, they receive similarinformation but not covered by Rule 35. If I was notclear on that, I am sorry, Ms Phillipson, but I lookedback at the evidence I gave last time and theclarification we gave, and I know what I was tryingto say and I thought it sort of said it, but if it did not,I am sorry; these things are very complex.In terms of the Rule 35 reports, the medicalpractitioner does not make a recommendation. Veryoften what the medical practitioner does is pass on tothe case-worker the information that has been3 Witness note: The specific sampling exercise on these cases

is relatively small, comprising 100 older asylum files and 50Active Review cases. This will help inform our plans fordealing with the remaining cases

given4. Therefore we think that the important thingis, as I said to you before, that we have trainingpackages, both for medical practitioner or guidance,and we have reissued guidance, and we also havetraining packages for case-workers in order to makesure that the consideration that they give to those Rule35 reports is as thorough as possible. As I said inanswer to you last time, we have put a lot of work inplace in order to make sure that we have training forcase-workers and that we take Rule 35 seriously.I do think that the difference between the number ofreports that we receive and the number of people thatwe decide to release in relation to that is because thereports themselves pass on the information, themedical practitioner passes on the information,including what at times will be unsubstantiatedclaims, and the case-worker has to consider that.

Q114 Bridget Phillipson: But the numbers are verylow in terms of referrals leading to release fromdetention, and surely the concern that we would haveis whether case-workers who are not medically trainedunderstand that they have to take into considerationevidence from medical professionals? Is it that the UKBorder Agency is suggesting that they in some wayare better placed to make a judgment on that thanpeople who are medically qualified?Rob Whiteman: The point I am making is thatmedical practitioners pass on the information that theyhave been told5. It is not the case that all Rule 35reports say, “In our opinion we think you shouldrelease the person”. Very often what Rule 35 reportsdo is to pass on the information that has been givento the medical practitioner and then the case-workermakes the decision.

Q115 Bridget Phillipson: What happens then?Surely the member of staff should be able to have aconversation with someone suitably qualified to reacha considered decision on that, rather than just readinga report on a piece of paper without having theopportunity to discuss its implications further.Rob Whiteman: The important thing, as I said earlier,is that we think the decision makers in this case haveto be very well trained, and we do provide trainingfor them to do that and we have ensured clearguidance for the medical practitioners in order thatthey understand the role of the Rule 35 report and thatwe have case-workers who are trained. We will ofcourse watch the figures, and we will see whathappens. There is a consistent pattern to those figures,which perhaps you take as alarming, but we can bereassured that something strange is not suddenlyhappening, looking at the figures. There is a consistentpicture to the figures, and we of course will continueto watch that after the training has been given andguidance for medical practitioners has its effect.

Q116 Mr Winnick: Mr Whiteman, you work on theassumption, I hope, that if you do not know theanswer when being questioned by Members, you4 This is in relation to their judgement on whether a detainee

may have been the victim of torture5 And will also reflect whether there is limited or no medical

evidence in support of an allegation of torture



admit it, and you do not lose any respect because ofthat. I refer you to the session in September when Iasked about three individuals who were found by theHigh Court to have been falsely imprisoned and weresubject to inhumane and degrading treatment inviolation of Article 3, and we had a dialogue. I asked,“Have you apologised for that?” You replied, “I doapologise, Mr Winnick”. I responded by saying, “Notto me; there is no need to apologise to me”, and youresponded to that by saying, “We have, yes, sir”, butapparently not, because my question to you thereforeis: are you aware a solicitor said, “Rob Whiteman saidin his letter to the Committee of 8 October 2012 theUK Border Agency has not formally apologisedoutside the settlement process, but has agreedappropriate damages in line with the AdministrativeCourt’s findings that limited periods of detention hadbeen unlawful”? I am just wondering—Rob Whiteman: I do not know the answer to that, MrWinnick. I cannot remember those three cases. I willgladly look at what I said at the time and see wherewe are now with them and write to you.

Q117 Mr Winnick: I understand that. There was noreason why anyone, be it you or whoever basicallywould do your job, or any Member of Parliament, anyMinister, can know the answer to every possiblequestion, but what surprises me is that you were sowilling to say yes an apology had been made when infact it had not been. Would it not have been better, onreflection, to have said, “I will look into that”?Rob Whiteman: Yes, Mr Winnick, it sounds as if thatis the case. Sometimes what happens in these cases isthat if we have made a settlement and finalised thematter on the settlement, then we would not reopen it.I will look at these cases, sir.

Q118 Chair: I am going to close the session now, butI want to ask two final questions. First of all, theHome Secretary said that the two units were going tobe an immigration and visa service and animmigration law enforcement organisation. Do wehave names for these services yet?Rob Whiteman: No, not at the moment. The HomeSecretary has set out the broad principles of what theywill do and that will be looked at in the immediatefuture, Mr Vaz.

Q119 Chair: This is your last appearance, so we donot have a name, so we do not write to you any more,obviously, because you are not the Chief Executive;is that right?Rob Whiteman: We will set up transitionalarrangements immediately.

Q120 Chair: Immediately as of today?Rob Whiteman: As of today I remain Chief Executiveof the Agency until 31 March, and I will now lead thetransition process and we will make sure that the issueof where letters and queries should go to will bedealt with.

Q121 Chair: So it may be more appropriate to writeto Ministers now in the interim so that the letter does

not get lost between your office and the Home Officeand somewhere else?Rob Whiteman: I am happy, if you write to me, tomake sure that it is dealt with appropriately by theproper person, or you are free to write to Ministers.We will put strong transitional arrangements in placeduring the period between now and new interimdirectors general being appointed.

Q122 Chair: When you were appointed you camebefore the Committee, you were the new broom, andyou were going to change everything that was goingto happen with the UKBA. It must be disappointingto hear the Home Secretary use those words “closed,secretive and defensive” about an organisation thatyou have led for the last two years. As we said in ourlast report, that must be an issue about leadership; thatis where culture comes from. Lin Homer, as we know,we have noted it in our last report, was promoted tobecome the Permanent Secretary at the HMIC,Jonathan Sedgwick, who we were anticipating hearingfrom today has gone off to work for the Ministry ofJustice, and you are now staying on to do thistransitional arrangement. Can you understand thepublic’s concern that here is an organisation that theMinister for Immigration has called troubled, that wehave called, in some cases, shambolic, that the HomeSecretary has called closed, secretive and defensive,yet everyone associated with the leadership of thisorganisation is guaranteed a job or has beenpromoted? Do you understand what the public mustfeel?Rob Whiteman: I do completely hear what you say. Ihope that the changes that I have made over the last18 months have put the UKBA and the immigrationservices on the road to better transparency. I have, Ihope, treated this Committee with respect. I havewritten to you on time; I have tried to makeinformation available. When we have discoveredmistakes we have said so. I think that where the HomeSecretary has set out that one of the major tenets ofwhat we want through the new organisations is toimprove their transparency, all of that applies. Ofcourse it is always disappointing if we have not madeas much progress as we wish we had.

Q123 Chair: Can I pay tribute to you, as this is thelast appearance you will be making as ChiefExecutive. Certainly, as you have correctly said, andcan I just repeat what I said earlier, in your dealingswith this Committee there has been a step change inthe way in which the UKBA has dealt with the HomeAffairs Select Committee. Your letters have improvedimmensely since your predecessor’s letters to us, andthe last letter, as I have said, was on time. You havealways been available whenever we have called you,and if you want a lasting legacy—and this is why Iam surprised that all these discussions were takingplace—you did close the Controlled Archive, whichwas a real bugbear for this Committee. I do not knowwhat you must feel after what has been said in theHouse about the organisation that you have led; thefact is—thank you for the way in which you havedealt with this Committee, and we wish you well inyour future career in the Home Office.



Rob Whiteman: I am very grateful for thosecomments, Chair; I have greatly enjoyed myappearances here, and I am grateful for, genuinely, theinsight that the Committee has given in terms ofimproving our immigration services, which I knowyou will want to see.

Chair: We may see you again in another role.Rob Whiteman: Let us see. Thank you very much.Chair: Mr Hayes, I am sorry that we kept youwaiting, but thank you for what you have done; mostgrateful.


Written evidence

Letter from the Chair of the Committee to Rob Whiteman, Chief Executive, UK Border Agency, 7January 2013 (UKBA Q4 01)

As part of the Committee’s ongoing inquiry into the work of the UK Border Agency I attach a data requestcovering the fourth quarter of 2012.

I would be grateful if you could make every effort to respond to the attached questions by 6pm on Thursday28 February.

Data Request covering the work of the UK Border Agency in Q4 2012

Q1 2012 is defined as the period 1st January—31st March 2012

Q2 2012 is defined as the period 1st April—30th June 2012

Q3 2012 is defined as the period 1st July—30th September 2012

Q4 2012 is defined as the period 1st October—31st December 2012

FOREIGN NATIONAL OFFENDERS (FNOS) AND EX-FOREIGN NATIONAL OFFENDERS (EX-FNOS)

1. For Q4 2012 please provide a breakdown for the status of the 2006 cohort of ex-FNOs released withoutconsideration for deportation.

2. What percentage of FNOs who entered the prison system in Q4 2012 were referred to the UKBA within 5days of sentencing?

3. What percentage of FNOs who entered the prison system between 1 October 2012 and the 1 December2012 were referred to the UKBA within 30 days of sentencing?

4. How many FNOs were released from prison or transferred from prison to immigration detention in Q42012?

5. How many of the FNOs released from prison in Q4 2012 were not considered for deportation?

6. How many of the FNOs released in Q4 2012 who were eligible Deported?for deportation were: given leave to remain?

cases remain outstanding at end of Q42012?

7. Please provide a breakdown of the cases that remained “outstanding” at the end of Q4 2012

8. How many detained FNOs facing removal or deportation could not be removed at the end of Q4 2012?Please provide a breakdown by the reason they could not be removed.

9. How many detained FNOs facing removal or deportation had been waiting 12 months or more for a traveldocument to enable their removal in Q4 2012?

10. Please provide the number and percentage of failed removals in Q4 2012

11. How many ex-FNOs who are subject to deportation were living in the community at the end of Q4 2012?

12. Please provide a breakdown for the length of time since release for ex-FNOs living in the community atthe end of Q4 2012

13. What is the current status of the 3 ex-FNOs (from the cohort of 28 released without consideration fordeportation in 2010–2011) that remained untraced at the time of the Committee’s last enquiry?

14. What percentage of FNO conclusions were removed under the Early Removal and Facilitated ReturnsSchemes in Q4 2012?

15. What was the average time it took to deport an ex-FNO in Q4 2012?

CAAU AND THE MIGRATION REFUSAL POOL

16. Please fill in the tables below for Q4 2012


SIZE OF THE “LIVE COHORTS”

Net no of cases at Number of cases Number of casesthe beginning of that left the live that entered the Net no of cases at the

the quarter cohort live cohort end of the quarter

Asylum live cohortImmigration livecohort

SIZE OF THE MIGRATION REFUSAL POOL

Net no of records Number of recordsat the beginning Number of records that entered the Net no of records at the

of the quarter that left the pool pool end of the quarter

Migration RefusalPool

17. How many records in the Migration Refusal Pool were assessed in Q4 2012?

18. Of the Migration Refusal Pool records Relate to individuals who had left the UK?assessed in Q4 2012 how many were found to: Relate to individuals who were living in the UK with leave

to do so?Relate to individuals who were living in the UK withoutleave to do so?

19. At the end of Q4 2012 how many of the had been granted permanent leave to remainconcluded cases in the asylum backlog: had been granted limited leave to remain

had been removed from the UKwere found to be duplicateswere found to be deceased

20. At the end of Q4 2012 how many of the had been granted permanent leave to remainconcluded cases in the immigration backlog: had been granted limited leave to remain

had been removed from the UKwere found to be duplicateswere found to be deceased

21. How many FTE staff were employed to work in the CAAU at the end of Q4 2012?

IMMIGRATION

SPONSORS AND LICENSING

22. How many sponsors were there in a) Tier 2 b) Tier 4 and c) Tier 5 at the beginning of Q4 2012?

23. How many new sponsor applications were made in a) Tier 2 b) Tier 4 and c) Tier 5 in Q4 2012?

24. How many new sponsor applicants in a) Tier 2, b) Tier 4 and c) Tier 5 received a pre-registration visit inQ4 2012?

25. How many follow up visits were made to sponsors in a) Tier 2, b) Tier 4 and c) Tier 5 in Q4 2012?

26. How many of the follow up visits made to a) Tier 2 b) Tier 4 and c) Tier 5 were unannounced in Q42012?

27. What percentage of Tier 4 Sponsors had Highly Trusted Sponsorship status at the end of Q4 2012?

28. Please provide a breakdown by the length of time it took to process applications for sponsors in a) Tier 2b) Tier 4 and c) Tier 5 in Q4 2012?

29. What was the average length of time taken to process a sponsorship application in Q4 2012?

30. How many sponsorship applications took longer than the average length of time to process in Q4 2012?

31. What was the maximum length of time taken to process a sponsorship application in Q4 2012?


OUT OF COUNTRY VISA APPLICATIONS

32. What percentage of out of country visa applications, in each PBS Tier, were processed within theAgency’s Service Standards in Q4 2012?

33. What were the number of cases in “Work in Progress” on the 31 December 2012 for both temporary andpermanent out of country visa applications broken down by case type (family, work, study, visit) ?

34. Of the applications for refugee/humanitarian Average time from receipt of application to the applicantsfamily reunion decided in Q4 2012 what was the being notified of the decision on the application

Maximum time from receipt of application to theapplicants being notified of the decision on the applicationMinimum time from receipt of application to theapplicants being notified of the decision on the application

35. Of the applications for refugee/humanitarian More than 6 monthsfamily reunion still pending at the end of Q4 More than 1 year2012 a) what percentage and b) how many havebeen outstanding for

IN-COUNTRY VISA APPLICATIONS

36. What percentage of in-county visa applications, in each PBS Tier, were processed within the Agency’sService Standards in Q4 2012?

37. What were the number of cases in “Work in Progress” on the 31 December 2012 for both temporary andpermanent in-country visa applications broken down by case type (family, work, study, visit)?

ENFORCEMENT

38. How many Illegal Working Civil Penalties were issued to employers between 1 October 2012 and 1December 2012?

39. Of the employers issued with Illegal Working paid the civil penalty in full?Civil Penalties between 1 October 2012 and 1 asked the civil penalty compliance team forDecember 2012 how many have now: permission to pay the civil penalty in monthly

instalments?submitted an objection to the civil penaltycompliance team against the service of the civilpenalty?lodged an appeal against the service of the civilpenalty to the appropriate court?

40. How many carriers were issued with a Notification of Demand for Payment Form IS80D between 1October 2012 and 1 December 2012?

41. How many carriers issued with a Notification of paid the charge in full?Demand for Payment Form IS80D between 1 October objected to the Inspector at the Carriers Liaison2012 and 1 December 2012 have now: Section at the UKBA?

lodged an appeal against the charge at the appropriatecourt?

42. In Q4 2012 how many Sponsor Notifications Tier 2regarding potential non compliance were received Tier 4from sponsors in Tier 5

43. Please provide a breakdown of how many Tier 2, had their licenses suspended in Q4 20124 and 5 sponsors had their licenses revoked in Q4 2012

APPEAL TRIBUNALS

44. In Q3 2012, for each category of First Tier allowedTribunal cases please provide a breakdown of the dismissednumber of appeals that were withdrawn

45. In Q3 2012 how many deportation appeals were alloweddismissedwithdrawn


46. A what percentage of a) First Tier Tribunal, b) Upper Tier Tribunal, c) Deportation and d) all appealhearings was the UKBA represented in Q4 2012?

47. In Q3 2012 how many a) First Tier, b) Upper Tier and c) Deportation cases were granted leave to remainsubsequent to an appeal’s being withdrawn? Please provide a breakdown by case type.

48. Please update us on the performance of UKBA against the targets in its Appeals Improvement Plan overQ4 2012

MPS’ CORRESPONDENCE

49. What % of further action referrals were completed within service standards in Q4 2012?

50. What % of MPs’ emails were answered within service standards in Q4 2012?

CHILD DETENTION

51. How many children entered immigration detention in Q4 2012?

IMMIGRATION DETENTION

52. In how many cases brought against the Home Office in Q4 2012 was a person held in immigrationdetention found to have suffered a breach of their rights under Article 3 of the ECHR?

53. What was the overall cost of detaining people who left immigration detention in Q4 2012 and weresubsequently granted leave to enter the UK?

54. How much did it cost per day to hold an individual in immigration detention in Q4 2012?

55. How many reports under Rule 35 were made by a medical practitioner to the UKBA about individuals inimmigration detention in Q4 2012?

56. Please provide a breakdown of the number of reports made by a medical practitioner under Rule 35 inQ4 2012 by institution?

57. How many reports made by a medical practitioner to the UKBA under Rule 35 in Q4 2012 resulted inthe individuals in question being released from immigration detention?

INTELLIGENCE

58. How many allegations of suspected illegal entry or continued residence in the UK were received in Q42012?

59. Please provide a breakdown of the outcomes of allegations of suspected illegal entry or continuedresidence in the UK received in Q4 2012.

ASYLUM

60. How many persons seeking asylum were recognised as refugees or given humanitarian protection by theUK in Q4 2012 following a previously unsuccessful claim and forcible removal from the UK ?

61. Please provide a breakdown by nationality for all such persons in Q4 2012

62. How many Azure cards were in use in the UK in Q4 2012?

63. How many support enquiries connected to Azure cards were made to a) Q1 2012UKBA and b) Sodexho Limited in: Q2 2012

Q3 2012Q4 2012

STAFF NUMBERS AND REMUNERATION

64. How many FTE employees were working at UKBA at the end of Q4 2012?

65. Please provide a full breakdown of FTEs by group within the UKBA for Q4 2012?

66. How much did the Agency pay to external consultants in Q4 2012?


LOST DOCUMENTS

67. Please provide a breakdown by type of document of the number of applicant documents that the UKBAlost in a) Q1 2012 b) Q2 2012 c) Q3 2012 d) Q4 2012

Rt Hon Keith Vaz MP,Chair of the Home Affairs Committee

7 January 2013

Letter from Rob Whiteman, Chief Executive, UK Border Agency, to the Chair of the Committee, 28February 2013

Thank you for your letter of 7 January requesting information ahead of my appearance before the Committeenext month.

Answers to the Committee’s questions can be found below. Please note that the majority of figures quotedare management information. This information has not been quality assured under National Statistics protocols.

I look forward to discussing this with you at my evidence session.

Rob WhitemanChief Executive, UK Border Agency

Foreign National Offenders (FNO) (Questions 1—15)

1. The table below provides a breakdown of the status of the 2006 cohort of 1,013 FNOs released withoutconsideration for deportation, as at the end of quarter four 2012:

Of which Going through ServingCases removed/ Of which deportation custodial Not

concluded deported not removed process sentence located Total

At end Q4 865 409 456 89 12 47 1,0132012

2. A further eight cases from this cohort were concluded in quarter four 2012, four of which were removed.

3. Data systems across Government departments do not currently enable us to provide information on whatproportion of FNOs were referred by the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) to the UK BorderAgency within specific times. The Home Office and Ministry of Justice are working on approaches to makethis simpler. In the meantime we continue to sample cases and a further sample has taken place for cases upto 21 September 2012 which showed that 33% of cases were referred to the Agency by NOMS within fivedays of sentencing, although almost 80% of referrals are received within 30 days, and there is a separateprocess for referring cases where release is imminent. We have introduced a back up system to check newlysentenced cases within the first few weeks of their sentence to ensure that a referral has been received.

4. With regard to the cohort of 28 FNOs released without consideration for deportation in 2010–11, threeremained untraced. We are continuing to attempt to trace these individuals and their details have been circulatedon the Police National Computer stating that the UK Border Agency should be contacted if they areencountered. All three cases have been referred to Operation Nexus1 for ongoing enhanced databasesubscription checks: all relevant applications from the individuals will automatically generate a “hit”notification to the Metropolitan Police, who will notify the UK Border Agency. All were convicted of offencesin the “other” category—the least serious category of offence.

5. The table on the next page shows the number of FNOs released from prison, transferred into immigrationdetention and released without consideration for deportation in quarter four 2012:

Q4 2012

Released from prison 734Transferred in to immigration detention 1,010Released without consideration for deportation 1

6. Since my letter of 6 December 2012 it has come to light that a further two individuals were released fromprison without consideration for deportation in quarters one and two of 2012. The individual released in quarterone was convicted of an offence in the “more” category2, the two other individuals, including the one releasedin quarter four, were convicted of “other” offences. None of the individuals is currently detained.1 Operation Nexus is an operational and intelligence partnership between the UK Border Agency and the Metropolitan Police

Service to intervene on FNOs wherever they are encountered.2 This category includes attempted murder or rape, conspiracy, kidnapping, violent crime or armed robbery. The individual in

question was a young offender who, rather than serving time in a prison, was sentenced to 24 months in detention and trainingorder in a Secure Training Centre. These fall under the Youth Justice Board (YJB), rather than NOMS, and the referral agreementwith the YJB was not in place at the time of release.


7. The table below shows the status of the FNOs eligible for deportation released from prison in quarterfour 2012:

Q4 2012

Deported *Concluded3 17Outstanding 343Total 362

*Less than five

8. The table below shows a breakdown of the status of the outstanding cases:

Q4 2012

Being caseworked4 143Legal issues5 142Removal issues6 50Other7 8Total 343

9. Note these figures refer to FNO cases outstanding at the end of the same quarter in which they werereleased. Some will have been released late in that quarter and so while they remain outstanding they mayhave only been so for a short period of time.

10. The table below shows the number of detained FNOs facing removal or deportation who could not beremoved at the end of quarter four 2012, broken down by primary barrier to removal:

Primary barrier Total

Challenge to deportation8 195Asylum claim or refugee status 25Children issues9 5Country situation prohibits removal 12Emergency Travel Document (ETD) required—individual compliant but ETD awaited 52ETD required—country non-compliant 30ETD required—individual non-compliant 123Further criminal proceedings 7Further representations or Judicial Review 39Medical reasons10 5Nationality not confirmed 11Awaiting removal 111

Total 505

11. The table below shows the number of detained FNOs who had been waiting 12 months or more for atravel document to enforce their removal, and the number of FNOs subject to deportation action living in thecommunity, at the end of quarter four 2012:

End of Q4 2012

FNOs waiting 12 months or more for a travel document to enforce removal 106FNOs subject to deportation action living in the community12 4,102

12. The table below shows details of failed removals of FNOs, and the average time taken to remove anFNO, in quarter four 2012:3 Includes those subsequently found to have a form of nationality / status that precluded deportation and those against whom we

did not pursue deportation due to the loss (or the likely loss) at appeal.4 Includes cases currently being caseworked, application to revoke deportation order, children issues, further representations,

medical reasons, awaiting travel documents, deportation order not yet served, awaiting removal, decision served.5 Appeal against deportation, asylum claim, judicial review.6 Emergency Travel Document (ETD) compliant but country situation prohibits removal; ETD required, non compliant and

unwilling to go voluntarily.7 Nationality not confirmed; unable to revoke asylum.8 Includes appeal against deportation or application to revoke deportation order.9 Individual has children in the UK which prevents removal.10 Individual has a medical condition that prevents removal.11 Individual was removed on 2 January 2013.12 Includes absconders and those who for legal reasons we are unable to detain.


Q4 2012

Number of failed removal attempts 208Percentage of total removal attempts 15%Average time (in days) taken to deport13 127

13. Note this relates to removal attempts, not individuals. One individual may account for multiple failedremovals, and in most instances individuals involved in failed removals are successfully removed at a later date.

14. The table below shows a breakdown of the length of time since release of the FNOs living in thecommunity at the end of quarter four 2012:

Q4 2012

Less than six months 374Less than 12 months 392Less than 24 months 625More than 24 months 1,572More than 60 months 1,092Data quality issues14 47Total 4,102

15. The table below shows the percentage of FNO removals that were made during their Early ReleaseScheme (ERS) period and under the Facilitated Returns Scheme (FRS) in quarter four 2012.15

Q4 2012

ERS 42%FRS 36%

Asylum and Immigration Caseload (16—21)

16. Due to the way we record our data, I am unable to provide figures exactly in the format requested. Thetable below shows the number of cases in the asylum and migration live cohorts at the end of the monthspecified (figures are to the nearest 500):

19 November 2012(controlled archive

September 2012 closure report) December 2012

Live asylum cohort 28,500 34,000 33,500Migration live cohort 4,000 7,000 7,000

17. The table below shows a breakdown of the outcomes of the total (since April 2011) concluded asylumlegacy cases as at the end of quarter four 2012 (rounded to the nearest 100):

Conclusion total at end of Q4 2012

Grant (permanent) 3,400Grant (temporary) 5,500Removal 4,400Duplicate 2,700Deceased 100Total 16,100

13 The length of time between date time served and removal date.14 These are cases where the custodial end date or early release date were not recorded at the time. Manual checks conducted since

my letter of 7 September have reduced the number of cases in this category from 162 at the end of quarter two 2012. Theremainder are old cases that we will continue to work through to determine the release date.

15 Note that individuals may be removed under FRS as well as during their ERS period, therefore some records will be includedin both categories.


18. The table below shows a breakdown of the outcomes of the total (since April 2011) concluded migrationlegacy cases as at the end of quarter four 2012 (rounded to the nearest 100):

Conclusions total at the end of Q4 2012

Grant (permanent) 600Grant (temporary) 500Removal 800Duplicate 500Deceased *Total 2,400

* Negligible (50 or less)

19. The table below shows the number of Full Time Equivalent (FTE) staff employed to work in the CaseAudit and Assurance Unit (CAAU) at the end of quarter four 2012:

End of Q4 2012

FTE employed in CAAU (including agency staff) 230

Migration Refusal Pool

20. The table below shows details of the number of records in the Migration Refusal Pool (MRP) overquarter four 2012:

Net number of records Number of records Number of recordsat the beginning of Q4 that left the pool that entered the pool Net number of records

2012 during Q4 2012 during Q4 2012 at the end of Q4 2012

MRP 181,541 28,563 37,637 190,615

21. In quarter four 2012 Capita assessed 24,936 records in the MRP to determine whether they were suitablefor contact. The contact management aspect of this work commenced on 12 December and therefore there areno figures available for the outcomes of this work before 31 December. Capita provides operationalmanagement information regularly, which we assure against our own management information. We will provideyou with quarterly updates (starting in my next quarterly letter) broken down into the following keyperformance indicators:

— The number of cases assessed by Capita;

— The number of cases shown as having departed from the UK;

— The number of cases in which there is a barrier to removal (including an outstanding application)and the case passed to back to UKBA to progress;

The number of cases where the outcome is that no contact can be made with the individual.

Sponsors and Licensing (22—31)

22. The table below shows the number of sponsors registered at the beginning of quarter four 2012:

Q4 2012

Tiers 2 and 516 25,400Tier 4 1,983

23. The table below shows the number of sponsor applications made in each Tier in quarter four 2012:

Q4 2012

Tier 2 1,748Tier 417 59Tier 5 105

16 Tier 2 and Tier 5 sponsors appear on the same sponsor register.17 Not all of these applications are for new licences. For example, the figures also include reinstatements.


24. The table below shows the number of new sponsor applicants in each Tier that received a pre-registrationvisit in quarter four 2012:

Pre-registration visits

Tier 2 194Tier 4 15Tier 5 4Tiers 2 and 518 6

25. The table below shows the number of follow up visits made to sponsors in each Tier in quarter four2012, and the number of these that were unannounced:

Follow up visits Unannounced follow up visits

Tier 2 1,366 462Tier 4 281 150Tier 5 80 9Tiers 2 and 4 35 4Tiers 2 and 5 51 10

26. At the end of quarter four 2012 82% of Tier 4 sponsors had Highly Trusted Sponsor status.

27. The table below shows the time taken to process sponsor applications in each Tier in quarter four 2012:

Four weeks or less More than four weeks

Tier 2 87% 13%Tier 4 85% 15%Tier 5 87% 13%

28. The table below shows the average and maximum time taken to process a sponsor application in quarterfour 201219:

Q4 2012

Average 17 calendar daysMaximum 276 calendar days20

Applications that took longer than average to process 1,766

29. The time taken to process an application may be extended for a number of reasons, including awaitingthe outcome of investigations by other government departments and agencies. Where an institution that appliesfor a sponsor licence is under investigation by, for example, the police, we will co-operate fully. Additionallyour decision may rest upon the outcome of these external investigations which we have no power to accelerate.

Visa Applications (32—37)

30. The table below shows the percentage of visa applications processed within the Agency’s servicestandards in quarter four 2012:

15 days (target: 90%) 30 days (target: 98%) 60 days (target: 100%)

Tier 1 86% 98% 100%Tier 2 94% 99% 100%Tier 4 87% 98% 100%Tier 5 96% 100% 100%

31. The table below shows the number of visa applications in progress as at the end of quarter four 2012broken down by case type:

Category Work in progress

EEA Family Permits 436Family Visit 4,740Other Non-Settlement 747Other Visitor 22,938PBS Tier 1 553PBS Tier 2 1,550PBS Tier 4 5,40118 These are sponsors that have applied for both a Tier 2 and Tier 5 sponsor licence simultaneously.19 Our service standard is to process 80% of sponsor applications within four weeks.20 This relates to an application that was delayed while the immigration status of the sponsor’s authorising officer was resolved

and pending additional information that was required before a decision could be made.



PBS Tier 5 615Student 8Transit 191Work permit 19Non-Settlement Total 37,198Settlement 6,997Out of country total 44,195

32. The Agency receives around 2.6 million visa applications a year so this figure represents less than aweek’s intake.

33. The table below shows the average, maximum and minimum length of time between receipt of anapplication for refugee/humanitarian family reunion and the applicant being notified of the decision in quarterfour 2012:

Q4 2012

Average 46 daysMaximum 321 days21

Minimum 1 day

34. The table below shows the number and percentage of applications for refugee/humanitarian familyreunion still pending at the end of quarter four 2012 that had been pending for more than six months:

Pending six to 12 months Pending over 12 months22

Number 34 357Percentage 3% 26%

35. The table below shows the proportion of in-country visa applications that were processed within theAgency’s service standards in quarter four 2012:

Postal applications Premium applicationsin four weeks in 24 hours(target: 90%) (target: 90%)

Tier 1 10% 79%Tier 2 86% 68%Tier 4 21% (target: 85%) 68%Tier 5 79% 88%

36. The table on the next page shows the number of in-country visa applications in progress at the end ofquarter four 2012 for both temporary and permanent migration broken down by case type:


Family 28,760Tier 1 (including post study work) 11,145Tier 2/5 2,903Tier 4 33,083Bulgarian and Romanian Caseworking 4,019European Community Association Agreement 1,913Sponsor (pre-licence) 749Sponsor (post-licence) 2,913Sponsor (highly trusted sponsorship) 0Sponsor (renewals) 32Temporary—total 85,517Permanent residence 30,134European casework 31,180British citizenship 17,662Permanent—total 78,976

37. In addition, on 31 December 2012 there were 48,857 temporary migration and 12,246 permanentmigration cases awaiting input on to our systems.21 This was due to an administrative error whereby an original refusal decision was not actioned on our IT systems, after which

the applicant appealed and the refusal was overturned, resulting in the lengthy period between application and final decision.22 Cases over 12 months old are likely to be outstanding IT records awaiting formal review, cleansing and closure on our IT

systems. They will be looked at as part of our wider data cleansing.


Enforcement (38–43)

38. The table below shows the number of civil penalties that were issued to employers, the number thathave now paid the civil penalty in full, the number that have asked the civil penalty compliance team forpermission to pay the civil penalty in monthly instalments, the number that have submitted an objection to thecivil penalty compliance team against the service of the civil penalty, and the number that have lodged anappeal against the service of the civil penalty to the appropriate court between 1 October and 1 December 2012:

Requested topay in

Issued Paid instalments Objected Appealed

Civil penalties 171 36 23 65 5

39. The table below shows the number of carriers that were issued with a Notification of Demand forPayment Form IS80D, the number that have now paid the charge in full, the number that have objected to theInspector at the Carriers Liaison Section and the number that have lodged an appeal against the charge between1 October and 1 December 2012:

Issued Paid Objected Appealed

Carriers 294 121 25 0

40. The table on the next page shows the number of sponsor notifications regarding non-compliance receivedin quarter four 2012:

Notifications in a potential non-compliance category23

Tier 2 5,964Tier 4 28,962Tier 5 646

41. The table below shows the number of sponsors that had their licences suspended or revoked in quarterfour 2012:

Q4 2012Suspended Revoked

Tier 2 209 170Tier 4 80 62Tier 5 16 7

Appeal Tribunals (44–48)24

42. The table below shows the number of First-tier Tribunal disposals (determined, withdrawn and struckout) in quarter three 2012:

First-tier Tribunal (Immigration andAsylum Chamber) Disposals Determined25 Withdrawn Struck out26

Asylum 2,800 2,500 270 0Managed Migration 7,200 6,000 810 400Entry Clearance 4,600 3,400 1,100 38Family Visit Visa 5,800 3,600 2,100 130Deportation 230 220 14 0

23 Note that sponsors self-select from a number of categories and a proportion are miscategorised.24 Figures in the tables below are rounded independently and may not sum because of rounding. The following conventions have

been used throughout:• Values less than 100 remain as unit values.• Values from 100 to 999 are rounded to the nearest 10.• Values of 1,000 and over are rounded to the nearest hundred.

25 Determined outcome is where a decision is made at an oral or paper hearing.26 Following the introduction of appeal fees the Ministry of Justice introduced a new category of disposals for appeals which have

been “struck out”. If an appeal is lodged but payment is not received by the Tribunal, the appeal may be struck out of the appealprocess.


43. The table below breaks down the number of First-tier Tribunal determined appeals by those allowed anddismissed in quarter three 2012:

First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Determined Allowed Dismissed

Asylum 2,500 770 1,800Managed Migration 6,000 3,100 2,900Entry Clearance 3,400 1,800 1,700Family Visit Visa 3,600 1,600 2,000Deportation 220 49 170

44. The table below shows the number of First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal27 disposals of deportationappeals (determined, withdrawn and struck out) in quarter three 2012:

Deportation appeals Disposals Determined Withdrawn Struck out28

First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and 230 220 14 0Asylum Chamber)Upper Tribunal (Immigration and 26 26 0 0Asylum Chamber)

45. The table below breaks down the number of determined Deportation appeals in the First-tier Tribunaland Upper Tribunal by those allowed, dismissed and remitted in quarter three 2012:

Deportation appeals Determined Allowed Dismissed Remitted

First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and 220 49 170 N/AAsylum Chamber)Upper Tribunal (Immigration and 26 10 15 *Asylum Chamber)

*Less than five

46. The table below shows the percentage of appeals at which the UK Border Agency was represented inquarter four 2012:

Representation rate

First-tier Tribunal 93%Upper Tribunal 100%Deportation 100%All appeal hearings 94%

47. The table below shows the number of cases where leave to remain was granted in quarter three 2012following an appeal being withdrawn:

Human Permanent TemporaryAsylum Deport Rights migration migration Total

First-tier 29 10 5 26 123 193Upper 2 0 0 6 8 16TribunalTotal 31 10 5 32 131 209

48. Please see below an update on our performance against targets in the Appeals Improvement Plan:

Bundling Performance

49. We aim to get appeal bundles to courts by target timescales which are in advance of the appeal hearing.Ministry of Justice (MoJ) management information indicates performance against these timescales hasimproved on performance in 2011/12 financial year (63%). Performance in July to September 2012 was 75%.

Representation

50. The UK Border Agency continues to achieve a 100% representation rate in the Upper Tribunal and atDeportation appeals.27 The First-tier Tribunal figures are taken from the published Official Statistics. The Upper Tribunal data is based upon

Management Information which is used for internal purposes only. Deport Appeals are those with a DA case prefix which fallunder the 2007 Act. Other appeal types (ie Asylum, Managed Migration) which are flagged as Deport Appeals are excluded.From 1 October 2012, all Deport Appeals are automatically registered under the DA prefix and therefore future comparisonsagainst previous data will need to take this change into consideration.

28 As per note 26.


51. Management information suggests that performance in the First-tier Tribunal has continued to improve.Between October and December we achieved a 93% representation rate, compared to 76% between April andJune and 88% between July and September. This improvement is due to:

— Recruitment into the presenting role and;

— Sharing staff resource between regional offices to meet hearing volumes.

Appeal Outcomes

52. MoJ published statistics show that over the three month period July to September the UK Border Agencywon 54% of all appeals at the First-tier Tribunal and 70% of asylum appeals. The win rate in 2011/12 was55% (71% for asylum appeals).

Reducing Appeal Volumes

53. Appeal volumes continue to reduce. MoJ published statistics show that in 2010/11 there were 136,800appeals compared to 112,500 in 2011/12. Between July and September there were 23,800 appeals, comparedto 32,200 in the same period the previous year.

MPs’ Correspondence (49–50)

54. The table on the next page shows the percentage of further action referrals that were completed withinservice standard and the percentage of MPs’ emails that were answered within service standard in quarterfour 2012:

Q4 2012Further action referrals 56%MPs’ emails 84%

Detention (51–57)

55. 54 children entered immigration detention in quarter four 2012.

56. It is not possible to provide definitive information on the number of people held in immigration detentionfound to have suffered a breach of Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights due to multiplegrounds of challenge and the fact that cases are managed separately by different business areas.

57. The total cost of detaining people who entered immigration detention and were subsequently grantedleave to enter or leave to remain in the UK in quarter four 2012 was £190,944.

58. The fact that an individual detained by UKBA is subsequently granted leave does not necessarily meanthat the decision to detain was incorrect. In many cases new information is provided at a later stage that altersthe individual’s status, whilst in others an individual may enter detention for their own safety while a finaldecision is made on their case.

59. The cost of detaining an individual in immigration detention is £102 per day. This value is based on thetotal cost of running the detention estate on a per bed, per day basis.

60. The table below shows the number of reports under Rule 35 that were made to UKBA about individualsin immigration detention, and the number of these that resulted in the individual being released, in quarterfour 2012:

Q4 2012

Rule 35 reports 354Rule 35 reports resulting in release 39

61. The table below shows a breakdown of the number of reports made under Rule 35 in quarter four 2012by institution:

Q4 2012

Brook House IRC 33Campsfield House IRC 11Cedars PDA 0Colnbrook IRC 42Dover IRC 37Dungavel IRC 9Harmondsworth IRC 53Haslar IRC 12Larne House 0Morton Hall IRC 27Pennine House 0


Q4 2012

Tinsley House 31Yarlswood IRC 96HMP Belmarsh *HMP Wandsworth *Stanmore Hospital *

*Less than five

Intelligence (58–59)

62. In quarter four 2012 the UK Border Agency received 20,142 allegations.

63. The Allegation Management System (AMS) went live on 30 September 2012. Quarter four data is acombination of AMS and manual returns. AMS data provides a breakdown of the type of immigration andsmuggling crimes which the public report; the chart below shows this for Q4 2012. This data is the public’sperception of the crime that they are reporting and does not necessarily reflect any actual offence committed.

8.84%

6.14%1.54%

0.27%

40.31%

1.39%

36.82%

3.70%

0.99%

Sum of Total Intake

Bogus Marriage

Fake or false document

Helping people to enter or stay in the UK illegally

Human Trafficking

Illegal Working

Lied in Application

No Permission to stay in t he UK

Other

Smuggling (Alcohol, Cash, Cigarette & Tobacco, Drugs, Other etc.)

64. Full AMS management information (MI) reporting is being launched in early February and this willallow us to provide data on outcome by allegation type. At present the combination of AMS MI and the manualdata previously provided is not considered sufficiently robust to provide to the Committee but once full AMSMI reporting is launched we will be able to provide more reliable data on this.

Asylum (60–63)

65. Ten individuals seeking asylum were recognised as refugees or given humanitarian protection by the UKin quarter four 2012 following a previously unsuccessful claim and forcible removal from the UK.

66. These figures are made up of nationals of Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Eritrea, Iran,Iraq and Pakistan. For data protection reasons I am unable to provide a more specific breakdown.

67. 2,990 Azure cards29 were in use during quarter four 2012.

29 The Azure is a pre-payment card designed to enable failed asylum claimants to buy essential food and toiletries while theymake arrangements to leave the UK.


68. The table below shows the number of support enquiries received by the UK Border Agency and Sodexoin 2012:

UK Border Agency Sodexo

Q1 2012 829 263Q2 2012 823 278Q3 2012 828 333Q4 2012 840 432

Staff Numbers and Remuneration (64–66)

69. The table below shows the number of full time equivalent (FTE) staff employed by the Agency, bygroup, at the end of quarter four 2012:

Q4 2012

International Operations and Visas 1,836Resources and Organisational Development 1,237Strategy and Assurance Group 532Crime and Enforcement Group 3,975Immigration and Settlement Group 4,472Director of Operations 1,250Total 13,300

70. The Agency spent approximately £572,500 on external consultants in quarter four 2012, primarily insupport of improving the Agency’s operational effectiveness, including by benchmarking processes againstother organisations. The work provided insight to the characteristics and relative maturity of UKBA peerorganisations (including those abroad). The findings of this research informed areas for the Agency to prioritisein the next two years to increase organisational performance. Overall the Agency’s spend on externalconsultants was lower in 2012 (approximately £1.3million) than in 2011(approximately £1.4million).

Lost Documents (67)

71. As advised in my letter of 16 January, we do not hold information on lost documents centrally.

Rob WhitemanChief Executive, UK Border Agency

28 February 2013

Printed in the United Kingdom by The Stationery Office Limited07/2013 030026 19585