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

HC 486 [Incorporating HC 924, 2012–13] Published on 13 July 2013 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £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

The work of the UK Border Agency (October–December 2012) 3

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

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

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

The work of the UK Border Agency (October–December 2012) 5

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

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

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

The work of the UK Border Agency (October–December 2012) 7

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

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

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.

The work of the UK Border Agency (October–December 2012) 9

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.

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

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.

The work of the UK Border Agency (October–December 2012) 11

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

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

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.

The work of the UK Border Agency (October–December 2012) 13

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.

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

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.

The work of the UK Border Agency (October–December 2012) 15

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

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

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

The work of the UK Border Agency (October–December 2012) 17

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.

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

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.

The work of the UK Border Agency (October–December 2012) 19

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.

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

Border Agency Backlogs

No. of cases No. of cases Difference % Increase or Q3 Q4 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 28,558 Unknown Unknown Unknown within targets

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

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

FLTR on basis of marriage or civil partnership – cases pending initial 2,100 2,100 0 0 decision

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

Total 321,726 502,467

23 Bold indicates worse performance

The work of the UK Border Agency (October–December 2012) 21

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)

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

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

The work of the UK Border Agency (October–December 2012) 23

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)

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

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)

The work of the UK Border Agency (October–December 2012) 25

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

Delivery Team Vacant Returns Sanctions Jonathan Nexus Interventions and Nancekivell-Smith Hugh Ind Removals Casework Director of Compliance and Returns Steve Lamb Phil Douglas Special Cases Andrew Jackson Criminal Casework David Wood Director General ent Directorate Organogram Chief of Staff Pernille Ware Criminal ICE North, Intelligence Operational Investigation David Pennant David Pennant Midlands + Wales Eddy Montgomery Tony Eastaugh Tony Diector of Operations mber 2012) ICE SNI ICE South Paul Wylie Richard Quinn Gillian McGregor Central Operations 26 The work of the UK Border Agency (October–Dece Annex II: Immigration Enforcem

27 er 2012) • Keith Ring Abu Dhabi Abu Dhabi ILM Eamon McGing The work of the UK Border Agency (October–Decemb Ralon Regional Manager Abu Dhabi Trevor Jones Trevor Abu Dhabi rance Structure Oct–Dec 2012 Carol Doughty Abu Dhabi ECMS • Fiona Solomon • Rebecca Brett • Pentland Tonya • Sharon Cave • Lisa Carruthers • Nina Thompson • Neil Carruthers Head of Visa Sections Head of Visa Regional Director GIP Islamabad Manager Mandy Ivemy Abu Dhabi Abu Dhabi Regional Business Regional Manager GIP Adam Tomaszewski Manager Entry Clearance Officers - 33 Entry Clearance Officers Entry Clearance Assistants –106 Abu Dhabi Kevin Woods • • Regional Operations David Fairbank Steve Pettigrew Abu Dhabi ECMs • Chris Denison • • Karen Rogers • Annex III: Abu Dhabi Entry Clea 28 The work of the UK Border Agency (October–December 2012)

Formal Minutes

Wednesday 10 July 2013

Members present:

Keith Vaz, in the Chair James Clappison Steve McCabe Michael Ellis Chris Ruane Dr Julian Huppert 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.

The work of the UK Border Agency (October–December 2012) 29

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

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

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 HC 67-I localised grooming 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 HC 183 Inspector of Constabulary Fourth Report Private Investigators HC 100 Fifth Report The work of the UK Border Agency (Dec 2011–Mar HC 71 2012) Sixth Report The work of the Border Force HC 523 Seventh Report Olympics Security HC 531 Eighth Report The work of the UK Border Agency (April–June 2012) HC 603 Ninth Report Drugs: Breaking the Cycle HC 184 Tenth Report Powers to investigate the Hillsborough disaster: HC 793 interim Report on the Independent Police Complaints Commission Eleventh Report Independent Police Complaints Commission HC 494 Twelfth Report The draft Anti-social Behaviour Bill: pre-legislative HC 836 scrutiny 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

The work of the UK Border Agency (October–December 2012) 31

March 2011) Tenth Report Implications for the Justice and Home Affairs area of HC 789 the accession of Turkey to the European Union 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 HC 907 communications 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 evidence

Taken before the Home Affairs Committee on Tuesday 26 March 2013

Members present: Keith Vaz (Chair)

Michael Ellis Bridget Phillipson Dr Julian Huppert Mark Reckless Steve McCabe Mr David Winnick ______

Examination of Witnesses

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

Q1 Chair: Could I call the Committee to order. split in two and then taken under the control of the Could I ask all Members to declare any interests in Home Office? advance of what is in the Register of Members’ Mark Sedwill: I think the Home Secretary set it out Interests? My wife is an immigration solicitor; I want in the House, Mr Chairman, and I can really only rest to add that to the declaration. on her explanation. She felt—and I think we all felt— May I welcome the new Permanent Secretary at the the Border Agency did not have the right size and Home Office, Mark Sedwill, and the Chief Executive shape to deliver in particular against the immigration of the UK Border Agency, Rob Whiteman. This is policy that the Government has been working on since part of the Committee’s quarterly look at the UKBA the election. Of course, some of the changes were letter. Clearly, gentlemen, things have changed since positive. The integration of Customs into the Border 2pm. We have all heard the Home Secretary’s Agency and that remaining part of the Border Force statement, and can I thank you, Mr Sedwill, for has been a genuinely positive experience, which has coming at short notice. The Home Secretary spoke led to more effective working at the border itself and to me, and I thought it was appropriate, as does the the Border Force is now a successful organisation, but Committee, that you should come here. The way we we felt it was right to continue the process of are going to deal with this session is that we will ask modernisation by creating these two new you, Mr Sedwill, and you, Mr Whiteman, about these organisations with coherent but distinct cultures, one changes and then you are excused. Mr Sedwill, we devoted to customer service and volume processing, will then continue with our normal examination of the the other devoted to law enforcement. work of the Agency. Mr Sedwill, you were not known when you were at Q3 Chair: Mr Whiteman, this must have been a huge the Foreign Office as being an assassin as far as blow to you, because only on 18 December, the administration is concerned, but it is 54 days since Immigration Minister said, “One of the encouraging you took over as Permanent Secretary, a non-Home things that Rob Whiteman has been doing since he Office official, and we have, in effect, the axing of the has been Chief Executive is pulling together work UK Border Agency. Is this your doing, or was this in across the Agency so that he and his senior the pipeline before you arrived? management team and the board focus on all the Mark Sedwill: Mr Chairman, first, thank you for Agency’s operations”. Also, he said, “One of the allowing me to join your session today. I know I am things that we are doing now is we brought in a new back before the Committee in the standard Permanent Chief Executive. Rob outlined for you clearly some Secretary session at the end of April, and I understand of the changes he is making in the senior management you are not letting me off the hook on that one, so I structure”. This must have been a terrible shock to look forward to being back before you then. you to find out suddenly the Agency that you were The simple answer to your question is that it is very appointed to head had now disappeared. much the Home Secretary’s change. She led the Rob Whiteman: It is not a terrible shock, and actually review process, as she mentioned in the House. It was it is not a blow, Chairman. a very thorough process. Indeed, the first meeting I Mr Winnick: I did not quite get that. It is or wasn’t attended with her on it was the week before I became a great shock? Permanent Secretary, when she started to look at the Rob Whiteman: Not a shock and nor a blow, Mr structure of the Border Agency and then led towards Winnick, in that the process of review was in order this conclusion, and it is probably one of the most to deal with the problems of the Agency’s size and thorough processes I have been involved in that has transparency, or lack of transparency, and some of the led up to a machinery of Government change of this inherent problems around ICT. The work that I have significance. done I hope contributes to a successful future for taking the Agency into the Home Office, ensuring that Q2 Chair: What is wrong with the UK Border we have new commands with distinct grips in the way Agency that meant that it had to be abolished, then that 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 the not from the Home Secretary, but from the BBC— size of UKBA, and we think that we can build that the new Agency will start? positively on what has happened over the last 18 Mark Sedwill: I think the Home Secretary did say in months. the House that she was going to dissolve the Agency—and that would take effect at the end of this Q4 Chair: But you have seen our last report, which financial year and into the next—and therefore will be we published on Monday. I think you have appeared integrated into the Home Office in the new financial in front of us four times since you have become Chief year. So the BBC may have picked it up, but she Executive. You have never said before to the certainly said it. Committee that you felt there was something so Mr Whiteman will be part of the future of the Home wrong with this organisation that it had be abolished. Office reform. You will understand why I do not want Did you hear what the Home Secretary said about this to get into individual personnel matters in front of the Agency, that it was “closed, secretive and defensive”? Committee. I still have to talk this through with the To be described as “closed, secretive and defensive” committee and so on. is a pretty severe attack on the Agency that you are Chair: No, we understand, but we do not want you leading. to negotiate— Rob Whiteman: I think I have said on a number of Mark Sedwill: He is a big part of the future of the occasions here, Chair— Home Office. Chair: That it is “closed, secretive and defensive”? Chair: I am sure he is. We do not want you to talk Rob Whiteman: I have said on a number of occasions personnel issues. Of course we do not want you to here, Chairman, that one of the problems of the negotiate Mr Whiteman’s contract in front of us, but Agency is that it has given incorrect information in the fact is he started with a job that had the whole of the past. I have created the Performance and the Agency. It was split in half. He is now still on £175,000 and the Agency has now been abolished. Compliance Unit, recognising the problems of the When we write to the Chief Executive, there is no Agency’s culture and also the poor transparency of the Chief Executive from Monday, so who is running the past, so I hope I have advised you about the scale of shop from Monday? what is needed at UKBA. I have always said it will Mark Sedwill: Ministers are running the shop from take many years to put it right, and I think that the Monday, and that is the point that the Home Secretary changes that the Home Secretary has announced today made. She wanted to bring to Ministers much clearer are the right direction in terms of a greater direction accountability for what has been the UK Border on operational focus, while at the same time some of Agency— the things that have undermined the Agency—poor systems, poor ICT—Mr Sedwill has put in the context Q7 Chair: Let us be clear: from Monday we write to of Home Office reform and efforts to improve them. the Home Secretary on any issues? Mark Sedwill: The Home Secretary announced the Q5 Chair: Mr Whiteman, it is not just about new changes today, but we still have to appoint directors computers, is it? We cannot have the same people who general for the two new commands, and, as she were running the Agency just now going to this new pointed out, probably the most important change here organisation. You yourself were appointed to an is that we are going to take the systems that work organisation that had the Border Force and the UKBA across the Agency into other parts of the Home Office, in it. The Border Force went off, so you were the head IPS, policing and all the rest of it, and that is a very, of the other bit, and now that bit is being split in half very big job, because that has been part of the problem and being taken under the control of the Home Office. that the Agency has faced. This is a very odd way to organise a management Chair: I understand. structure. Have you ever been in a job like that before, Mark Sedwill: So you will be writing either to the where you are given a job, it is then halved, the other two directors general for the two new commands that bit is then abolished and presumably you now have to the Home Secretary described today or of course to apply for a job? Are you out of a job from Monday? Ministers. Rob Whiteman: I perhaps will let the Permanent Secretary tell you of my future. Q8 Chair: They are vacant—we can’t write to those Chair: What, you mean you don’t know? who are heading the commands, because they do not Rob Whiteman: No. exist. Presumably you are going to advertise their jobs? Q6 Chair: Mr Sedwill, we are worried about Mr Mark Sedwill: We will make interim appointments Whiteman, because his jobs and his organisations very quickly, and then there will be a full recruitment seem to be abolished beneath him. He hangs on to the process to recruit permanent appointments to those salary that he was originally given, which I think was jobs over the next few months. £180,000-odd. Rob Whiteman: £175,000. Q9 Chair: You know, what worries me, Mr Chair: £175,000. Sorry, I have given you £5,000 Sedwill—and I am going to ask colleagues to come more. The Committee likes Mr Whiteman, because he in now—is the fact that it all sounds a bit chaotic. We is the only senior member of the UKBA who did not had the Prime Minister’s speech on Monday—and of take a bonus last year, so that impressed us. But what course I would understand you saying it is not chaotic; is his status, because from Monday we understand— you are the Permanent Secretary—and on Tuesday we Home Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 3

26 March 2013 Mark Sedwill, Rob Whiteman and Simon Hayes had this statement. We have no idea as to who is going Q14 Chair: I am sure he is very pleased about that. to run the Agency from Monday. You are going to Just one final question from me; in our report, there make interim appointments. You have a live Chief seems to be five people on your board, Mr Whiteman, Executive sitting on your left-hand side who at the who are not currently in post, but presumably you moment does not have a job because he is not one of have appointed them. Mr Hayes, whom we will hear the interim directors general, so from now on, from later, of course is an acting executive director. presumably until we get these interim people, we will What happens to those five who you have appointed write to the Home Secretary about these matters? to the board and who have not started their jobs? Mark Sedwill: What I would suggest, Mr Chairman, Rob Whiteman: Those recent appointments stay in is you continue to write to Ministers about the matters post, Mr Vaz, and of course they go into new you currently write to Ministers on. Rob Whiteman commands that will be led by directors general. will still be here on Monday and will still be Chair: Excellent. overseeing the transformation programme of the Rob Whiteman: We have made good appointments to Agency. We cannot just flick a switch and put it out director positions, and they will report to the new DG. of existence overnight. Chair: We will come on to that in a minute; David Chair: Exactly. Winnick, and then other colleagues. Mark Sedwill: Apart from anything else, it was brought into existence by an Act of Parliament, and Q15 Mr Winnick: Mr Whiteman, it is no reflection we still need the Agency to, for example, collect— on you, for the reasons the Chair remarked, but you will accept, will you not, that UKBA was an unloved Q10 Chair: So, Rob Whiteman will be the head of organisation and it certainly will not be missed? transition? Rob Whiteman: I would say that, yes. It has had a Mark Sedwill: Exactly, so he will still be in place as very bad reputation, and I think that is a shame for part of the transition. the many, many dedicated staff. UKBA has many excellent staff who every day do a good job, and I Q11 Chair: That is going to be his title, or have I absolutely believe that the changes that the Home just given him the title? Secretary has announced will ensure that they are in organisations of which they can be more proud as the Mark Sedwill: Sorry? transformation of the Home Office occurs. Chair: Is his new title the Head of Transition? Mark Sedwill: No. Q16 Mr Winnick: Let me put it to you this way, Mr Whiteman. I certainly think, and I am sure that my Q12 Chair: What is his title for Monday? colleagues agree, that it would have been Mark Sedwill: We are still working on exactly what inappropriate for you to have come to the Home that is. It is not chaotic, Mr Chairman, but you will Affairs Committee and said, “The organisation really understand— is in such a state that it needs reorganising.” We Chair: It sounds pretty chaotic. wouldn’t have expected you to say that and certainly Mark Sedwill: You will understand that the Home not the Home Secretary, to say the least, but at what Secretary set out a policy announcement today. She stage did you come to the view—if you did; perhaps felt she should do that before the Easter recess. you didn’t—that, having been appointed and seen the Chair: Of course, yes. situation as it is, the Agency really just would not Mark Sedwill: Had we started making appointments serve its purpose, it wasn’t fit for purpose, even if you of this kind, the news would have leaked out and then did not communicate that to some of your immediate you would have called us in front of you asking us colleagues? Or did you not come to that view at all? why it was we had not made a policy announcement Rob Whiteman: I don’t think I came to that view at in Parliament before we started to make the an exact moment in time, Mr Winnick. What matters managerial changes. So, we are seeking to do this in here is that we have given the Home Secretary options the most orderly way we can, commensurate with the in the way that she has wanted, and of course my job transparency we owe to Parliament. as a civil servant is to give an honest and true account of what is working well or better at UKBA but also Q13 Chair: Of course. But of course we have always what is not working well and how the changes that known we are going into recess or we have known for could be brought about will improve it. I think my job some time, so you could have organised it slightly is to give honest and true advice on both those better. But the current position is Mr Whiteman is no scenarios. longer the chief executive from Monday; he does not have a title; he is still very much with us and he is Q17 Mr Winnick: I want to come to Mr Sedwill in going to oversee the transition. just a moment, but one further question to you: you Mark Sedwill: He does have a title. He is a director are quite happy, are you, if that is the right word, to general in the Home Office, and he will oversee the be involved in a senior position in immigration transition of the Border Agency to the new structures matters; your work at UKBA has not put you off and will be making interim appointments swiftly, doing this sort of work? shortly after Easter, and then permanent appointments Rob Whiteman: No, absolutely not, Mr Winnick. I in due course, and then Rob will continue in a major remain very committed to the Immigration Service of role in the Home Office overseeing this the Home Office and the work of the Home Office in transformation. general. I remain absolutely committed to that, and I Ev 4 Home Affairs Committee: Evidence

26 March 2013 Mark Sedwill, Rob Whiteman and Simon Hayes hope that in the future role that I am being given, in established the right platform for tackling all of those order to make sure that the systems that support Home underlying issues that you refer to, including, as the Office operations are working effectively, I can add Home Secretary said, the underlying case value to the Immigration Service as well as to other management systems, the ICT and so on, and to do parts of the Home Office. that in a more coherent way than we have been able to in the past. But this is just the first step. It is a Q18 Mr Winnick: Mr Sedwill, the Home Secretary necessary step, but it is not a sufficient one, and we explained the splitting into two different organisations have to get the hard part, in a sense, started. and the reasons, but you will be chairing all the Chair: Thank you. We have to move on, Mr Winnick. constituent organisations in the Immigration Service, Dr Huppert. immigration, passport, Border Force and so on and so forth. That will be your job, chairing it, yes? Q21 Dr Huppert: I absolutely understand that you Mark Sedwill: Not of the Agency. We have a series both have to be very on-message and support the of governance structures within the Home Office, and, Home Secretary’s suggestion that this is carefully as the Home Secretary said, there will be a board that managed and planned. Presently you are doing a fairly is designed to bring all of the pieces of the valiant job on that. The thing that is slightly immigration system together, so the Border Force, the problematic in that is the statement that came out on two new commands— Thursday from the Immigration Minister, because just Mr Winnick: I understand that, but you will be last Thursday there was this written ministerial chairing it? statement that says, “The UK Border Agency is Mark Sedwill: Yes. playing an important role. It has already shown signs Mr Winnick: How much of that will— of significant improvement. It is building on success”, Mark Sedwill: As will Ministers, of course; the and then ends by saying, “I am confident that these Ministers and I will chair this, depending on the measures represent the start of a period of further focus of— improvement that will leave the UK Border Agency on the sure footing necessary to continue to deliver a Q19 Mr Winnick: Yes, but you are the most senior safe and efficient immigration system.” So on official obviously in the Home Office, and you have Thursday it was doing well, getting better and about enough responsibilities, I am sure, to occupy yourself to be on a sure footing; on Tuesday it is killed. Now, at the moment. How much time will you therefore other than our report, what changed between Thursday have to chair this board? and Tuesday that made it from getting better to being Mark Sedwill: I can’t say exactly how much time it disposed of? will require. It varies from time to time, to be honest, Mark Sedwill: I hesitate to suggest that it wasn’t the and so we spend a great deal of time on the Border report that triggered that, but I am afraid it was not. Agency at the moment because of the changes the The Home Secretary was reviewing this for several Home Secretary was contemplating, and I expect it months, and of course you would not expect Ministers will be a major burden or a major priority for me to foreshadow a decision that had not yet been made. over the next months until we have the new structure The dissolution of an agency and the reintegration into stabilised. I would then expect it to move into a more the Home Office has to be approved by not only the normal management system. Home Secretary but by other members of the Government, the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Q20 Mr Winnick: You see, Mr Sedwill, UKBA, as Minister, there are measures with the Treasury and so I have said, has never been particularly liked. I have on. All of that had to go through, so we have been described it as an organisation that was unloved, working up to this for some time, but the actual formal chaotic and with tens of thousands of outstanding decisions were taken only in the last few days. The cases; a lot of the time there was sheer inefficiency. You have read our reports, and I am sure you have Home Secretary took the decision, rightly, that as soon read our last report. It was a pretty damning as that decision had been taken—the Prime Minister, indictment of the organisation, and much of it not the as she said, mentioned it in his speech yesterday—she fault of Mr Whiteman, but why should we have any should bring it to the House, not least because confidence that this new organisation—or two new otherwise there is a risk of a leak and it comes out in organisations and the board and the rest of it—will in an unco-ordinated, chaotic way. practice be any more efficient, any more able to overcome the chaotic system that existed, yes, under Q22 Dr Huppert: But on Thursday, was the the previous Government and the three years since Immigration Minister aware that this was likely to this Government has been in office and be any better? happen? Mark Sedwill: I am sure you will want to continue to Mark Sedwill: The Immigration Minister has been scrutinise it, Mr Winnick. intimately involved in this throughout. Mr Winnick: To say the least, to say the least. Mark Sedwill: Indeed, and certainly neither I nor the Q23 Dr Huppert: In that case, why would he tell the Home Secretary would claim that this change, House that he was confident that there will be a period although it is a significant modernisation, is in itself of further improvement that will leave the UK Border going to transform the Agency. It is what we do now. Agency on a sure footing? If he knew that there was So we believe that by making the changes that the a high chance in the next few days there would not Home Secretary set out today, we have essentially be, he could have just left that paragraph out, rather Home Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 5

26 March 2013 Mark Sedwill, Rob Whiteman and Simon Hayes than saying something that was likely not to be true Minister for the last time this morning before the in the next few days. decision— Mark Sedwill: You will forgive me, Dr Huppert, for Chair: This morning? not seeking to try either to correct or to speak for the Mark Sedwill:—was made to bring it before the— Immigration Minister, but the substance of the Immigration Minister’s remarks was that there have Q27 Dr Huppert: So, it was a carefully managed been improvements, as there have under the plan that happened within a couple of hours this leadership of Rob Whiteman. You have acknowledged morning? that yourselves, and we expect those improvements to Mark Sedwill: No, no. Mr Chairman, you are seeking continue, as the Immigration Minister set out. We to try to put words into my mouth. I am trying to believe the changes we are making are the right ones explain. to enable that. It is not that there has been a sudden change of policy, but of course he could not have Q28 Chair: No, Mr Sedwill, shall we pause a minute hinted to the House at this change before the decision so that you can have a think about this before you say was taken. anything further? What you have told the Committee so far is that the Immigration Minister in good faith Q24 Dr Huppert: But he did not have to table the laid a statement before the House on Thursday 21 statement on the Thursday when there was not a March; that there had been ongoing discussions for decision, and hence he had to say something that turns many, many months; and Mr Whiteman was part of out not to be right. He could have waited until this discussion. Nobody at that stage presumably Tuesday, presumably. thought it was a closed, secretive and defensive Chair: Mr Sedwill, the reason why Dr Huppert is organisation, but after Thursday afternoon, after this pursuing this, with the support of the Committee, is matter had been put before the House, it went to the that if you look at the last paragraph of the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister this statement—we are not saying this but some may say morning for final sign-off? that this is tantamount to misleading the House if the Mark Sedwill: Mr Chairman, it would not be right for Immigration Minister knew that these changes were me to get into all of the conversations, some of which going to be made. This was the point that Dr Huppert I am not privy to, within Government. is making. He is not accusing the Minister, but if you Chair: Sorry, with greatest respect, Mr Sedwill, you look at that last paragraph, indeed he says it is going are sitting in front of us today because I had a to deliver a safe and efficient immigration system, but conversation with the Home Secretary and she by Tuesday afternoon the Home Secretary described offered you. Mark Sedwill: it as “closed, secretive and defensive”. This is not an I know. Chair: episode of The Thick of It. This is the Home Office, I do not whether as a sacrificial lamb, but she offered you to come here to answer all our questions. running the Immigration Department. This is a serious Mark Sedwill: I am doing my— matter, isn’t it? Unless you are telling us that the Chair: Otherwise, believe me, she would be sitting in decision was made after Thursday, after the statement your place. was made, then we could understand the last Mark Sedwill: I am doing my best, Mr Chairman. paragraph. Mark Sedwill: That is my point. The final decision Q29 Chair: So we would expect you, as the was taken after Thursday and the Home Secretary Permanent Secretary, to be able to know answers to brought it to the House on the first opportunity after this question. When was it finally signed off? the final decision was taken. Mark Sedwill: The final decision was taken overnight. Q25 Chair: So, after this statement was made? Q30 Chair: Not this morning? Mark Sedwill: But the process leading up to that Mark Sedwill: The Home Secretary confirmed— decision was very hard one. well, overnight. Chair: Of course, we understand. Chair: Mr Sedwill, you are not doing yourself any Mark Sedwill: Indeed, I think, if my recollection is favours. correct, the final meeting I had with the Home Mark Sedwill: I know. I realise, Mr Chairman, and Secretary on this before she took the proposal to the I apologise. Prime Minister and other Members of the Cabinet was on Thursday afternoon. Q31 Chair: You have so far told us it was taken after the statement; you have told us it was taken overnight; Q26 Dr Huppert: But when you say it was the first you told us it was taken this morning and next you opportunity, presumably if the decision was made on are going to be talking about close of play and other Thursday afternoon, which you are now suggesting— cricketing terms. Just very, very simply, when was the Mark Sedwill: No, the Home Secretary herself, but decision taken? When did the Prime Minister and the the dissolution of an agency is a matter not just for Deputy Prime Minister sign this off, because the Home Office; it is for the rest of Government. somebody must have prepared the statement for the Dr Huppert: So, exactly when was the final Home Secretary to put before the House. When? decision made? Mark Sedwill: Let me just take you through the Mark Sedwill: I think the Home Secretary talked it sequence then, Mr Chairman. over with the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Chair: Please. Ev 6 Home Affairs Committee: Evidence

26 March 2013 Mark Sedwill, Rob Whiteman and Simon Hayes

Mark Sedwill: The Home Secretary has had a series Easter recess working on some more of the details, of meetings on this over the last few months, but the conclusion Ministers reached, I think rightly, including before I became Permanent Secretary, and I was that having made the decision, the Prime was involved in one of those just the week before I Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and other took over. We had the final one of those very members of the Cabinet having approved it, the right substantive meetings with her on Thursday, and as a course of action was to tell the House at the earliest result of that meeting— opportunity. Chair: On Thursday last week? Mark Sedwill: On Thursday. Q35 Chair: Sorry, you have now brought in the Cabinet. Was it taken to the Cabinet? Q32 Dr Huppert: On the day you tabled the written Mark Sedwill: I said other members of the Cabinet. ministerial statement saying nothing about it? Chair: Oh, right. So there was no Cabinet meeting? Mark Sedwill: Well— Mark Sedwill: I referred to two of the other Ministers Chair: On Thursday 21 March? a moment ago, Mr Chair. Mark Sedwill: Indeed, on Thursday. Chair: I think this is very clear, and you have given us—sort of—a clear account of what happened. I will Q33 Chair: Who was present at the meeting? call Steve McCabe, then Mark Reckless, Bridget Mark Sedwill: It was an internal Home Office Phillipson and Michael Ellis, and then we are done meeting with myself, the Home Secretary, Mr on this. Whiteman and other officials. Chair: Excellent. Q36 Steve McCabe: I hope the poor Immigration Mark Sedwill: As a result of that meeting, she Minister is more in the loop when he adopts his new concluded this was the right answer. responsibilities. Chair: Excellent. Mr Whiteman, I think I have to ask you this. I Mark Sedwill: She then had to secure the formal understand why Mr Sedwill says we should not agreement of other members of Government. discuss personnel matters, but do you think in this age Chair: Sure. of austerity the public will understand how someone Mark Sedwill: In order to dissolve an Agency, the who ends up with a quarter of the responsibilities he Minister at the Cabinet Office has to be involved, the originally had should keep the same salary level? Treasury has to be involved, and of course, because it Rob Whiteman: I don’t mind your asking about it at is a Coalition Government, both the Prime Minister all, Mr McCabe. My responsibilities will be different. and Deputy Prime Minister have to be comfortable. Steve McCabe: They have been reduced by three We had a further meeting in the Cabinet Office quarters from the job you were appointed to. yesterday, having had some discussions over the Rob Whiteman: In respect of running operations, that weekend on the modalities for this, including on is quite correct, but in terms of making sure that the whether announcements should be made before or systems of the Home Office work effectively, in terms after the recess. A final note went to the Prime of support to those operations and indeed to other Minister overnight, and, as a result of that note, it operations with which I am presently not involved, I was decided that the Home Secretary should make a think the job that Mr Sedwill has asked me to do is statement to the House today before the recess, and an important one for the future of the Home Office. It the statement was completed this morning so that the is different. It is a more strategic job across a wider Home Secretary could make the announcement. remit of the Home Office, and, yes, it involves less Chair: So, does that give you an answer, Dr Huppert? direct management of operations. It is a different job, Dr Huppert: It does. Mr McCabe. Chair: Because it clarifies the different— Q37 Steve McCabe: Do you think the public will Q34 Dr Huppert: It does. What is not clear is why understand my point? this other statement, and indeed a 23-page Rob Whiteman: Yes, I understand the point you are Government response on the work of the Border making, Mr McCabe, and I hope I have given you an Agency, was published on the Thursday when you honest answer, but one of the things about the Civil were having the last-minute conversations. Did it not Service is we have very different roles and there are occur to anybody that it would have been sensible not support roles and there are roles running operations to do that when you are about to change everything and there are roles in policy, and I hope that the job and to do everything together, because that would at that Mr Sedwill has asked me to do will add value to least look more controlled, rather than the idea that our operations and indeed to the wider Home Office. policy has suddenly swung from a Thursday to a Tuesday. Q38 Chair: Excellent. You were offered that job Mark Sedwill: It really has not. It genuinely has not when? Today? suddenly swung from a Thursday to a Tuesday. Rob Whiteman: While the changes have been under Dr Huppert: But it does look like it. Do you discussion, Chairman, Mr Sedwill and I have had a understand what it looks like? number of conversations. Mark Sedwill: I understand the perception, but of Chair: It was offered before Thursday? course one of the options would have been to have Rob Whiteman: We have been discussing what would waited until after the recess for the Home Secretary happen over a period of time, but the important to make the statement and we could have spent the thing— Home Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 7

26 March 2013 Mark Sedwill, Rob Whiteman and Simon Hayes

Chair: The important thing is clarity, because you are saying he was confident UKBA was going to the Head of the Agency, and you answered letters continue? from us. You have been discussing with Mr Sedwill Mark Sedwill: As I have already explained, the your appointment as the Head of Transition before Agency was still in being and the formal decision by Thursday? Government as a whole, which of course is a more Rob Whiteman: No, the decision was made on complex business with a Coalition Government, had Thursday, and I have been working on effecting that not been taken. What he was talking about was the transition. immigration system, and so he was seeking to answer Chair: Since Thursday afternoon you know you have a report against the background of a decision that had a job doing the transition? not been reached. Mark Sedwill: To be clear, Mr Chairman, we have been having discussions separately about the kind of Q44 Mark Reckless: With respect, Mr Sedwill, he role that Mr Whiteman would play in the future, but was not talking about the immigration system; he was of course there was no decision. talking about the UK Border Agency, and in this final Chair: Of course, until this morning. paragraph in the statement he says he is confident it Mark Sedwill: Therefore there was no decision on the is going to continue on a sure footing. It had been exact structure of the Agency until we had completed decided by the Home Office to recommend its the process, and so we were not in a position to— abolition, yet a Minister was telling Parliament he was Chair: Sure. Which happened this morning? confident it was going to continue. Was the Minister Mark Sedwill: The final approval was given this out of the loop, or was Parliament misled? morning. The decision, as I said, was made by the Mark Sedwill: I would not characterise it as either of Home Secretary on Thursday afternoon. those, Mr Reckless. It would have been wrong for the Minister to have foreshadowed either by commission Q39 Mr Winnick: Can I ask what time? or omission a change to the status of the Border Chair: What time? Agency that had not yet been through the full process Mr Winnick: What time in the morning? of approval within Government. The Agency, the legal Chair: What time was the meeting that finally signed personality, will continue for some time into the next this off on Thursday? financial year, because that is necessary for the Mr Winnick: It is a simple question. functioning of the immigration system, including, for Mark Sedwill: I don’t know. We had a message back. example, the collection of fees. The Agency was The Home Secretary was at Cabinet this morning, and established by an Act of Parliament, and therefore we had a message back during that period that the there will have to be some formal changes to its status. final conversations had taken place, the final approvals So it is wrong to say that the Agency has been had been given and we could go ahead. abolished overnight. The Home Secretary set out the policy decision to dissolve the Agency and bring it Q40 Mr Winnick: But that would have all been back into the Home Office. The implementation will recorded, wouldn’t it, in the office? take some time. Mark Sedwill: Not necessarily. The— Q45 Mark Reckless: Mr Sedwill, I find your claim Q41 Chair: Sorry, you wouldn’t record in the office that it would have been an error of omission not to a message from No. 10? include that final paragraph in Thursday’s written Mark Sedwill: No, no. We do not record minute by statement absolutely extraordinary, knowing that a minute when conversations happen. Yes, of course we decision has been made in the Home Office, that the will have recorded from the Cabinet meeting this Home Office is recommending abolition of UKBA, morning that we had the approval to go ahead with and for a Home Office Minister then to make a the statement this afternoon. statement to Parliament saying that it is on a sure footing. Q42 Mr Winnick: So, you can send the information, Mark Sedwill: The Minister was, I think, seeking to even if you do not have it now? address the specific points about the immigration Mark Sedwill: It was in a period this morning during system as a whole, and it would have been wrong, I the Cabinet meeting. I don’t know exactly what time think, for him to foreshadow that statement. that was. I am not sure why that— Chair: Okay, that is very helpful. We will pursue that. Q46 Mark Reckless: I am sorry, Mr Sedwill, just Mr Winnick: I think it is very unhelpful, but there read this. you are. Mark Sedwill: I don’t have the paragraph in front of me. Q43 Mark Reckless: Mr Sedwill, you said there Mark Reckless: It refers again and again and again were a series of meetings over the past few months to UKBA, not to the immigration system as a whole. about abolition of UKBA and that the final meeting Chair: Mr Reckless, could we just give Mr Sedwill a in the Home Office or decision was on the Thursday, copy of the statement? I am surprised that you have and the Home Office decided on Thursday as far as it not seen it. was concerned to recommend abolition of UKBA, is Mark Sedwill: No, I am not saying I have not seen it. that correct? Why then did a Home Office Minister I just do not have it in front of me, and I do not— give a statement to Parliament on that Thursday Chair: Mr Reckless, Mr Sedwill now has it. Ev 8 Home Affairs Committee: Evidence

26 March 2013 Mark Sedwill, Rob Whiteman and Simon Hayes

Q47 Mark Reckless: With hindsight, Mr Sedwill, suddenly we launched this on to an unsuspecting was it really sensible to include that final paragraph system. The centre—Downing Street, the Cabinet in a statement to Parliament on the same day that the Office and others—had been involved in this process Home Office decided it wanted to abolish the UKBA? all the way through— Mark Sedwill: I think on reflection, Mr Reckless, a Mark Reckless: Would it be fair to say— slightly vaguer statement might have been wise, but I Mark Sedwill:—and that the point I was trying to would not accept the criticism that we, let alone the answer earlier was about the specific and formal Immigration Minister himself, misled the House. I moments when we were able to have the Home think I have tried to explain the sequence of these Secretary make her statement. decisions, and there was certainly no decision by then that there would be a parliamentary statement today. Q51 Mark Reckless: Would it be fair to say that the Indeed, at that time we had not reached a conclusion Prime Minister’s interest in the speech accelerated about exactly how or when the Home Secretary would this decision? make this announcement to the House, and that was Mark Sedwill: The decision, no, because we had taken thereafter. decided some time ago that the Home Secretary wanted to reach a conclusion on this matter before the Q48 Mark Reckless: Two things happened that seem Easter recess. In terms of the choice about when to to be relevant between Thursday and today. One, the make the announcement, then of course a big speech Home Affairs Select Committee published our report by the Prime Minister in this policy area was a again castigating—and perhaps even more strongly relevant factor. than previously—the performance of the UKBA, and secondly, the Prime Minister made, as you say, a Q52 Mark Reckless: The Home Secretary said in her broad-ranging speech on the immigration system as a statement that you would be chairing this oversight whole. Doesn’t today’s statement reflect one or either board, is that right— or both of those developments? Mark Sedwill: That is right. Mark Sedwill: I think they are both important inputs. Mark Reckless:—or did he say that she would be We knew that your report was likely to be critical. We chairing it? had seen of course the Chief Inspector’s report and Mark Sedwill: Of course I do all of this on her behalf, we were aware that you were likely to issue a sharply but we already have a border strategy board, which is critical report at this time, and of course we see chaired by the Minister for Immigration. That brings embargoed copies and so on shortly in advance. in various agencies, but in terms of actual official Indeed, we handle them very, very carefully. We also leadership of this, doing the performance reviews, knew both the Deputy Prime Minister, who was ensuring that we have the right systems in place, that speaking on Friday, and the Prime Minister were is part of my job, yes. making big speeches on immigration around this time, and all of that informed the decision, not the decision Q53 Mark Reckless: Finally, if I may, Chair, the of substance that the Home Secretary set out today, enforcement part of the Home Office for immigration: because that decision I think would have been taken how do you see that operating with the National anyway, but they were of course important contexts to Crime Agency sort of border command? the political choice for the Home Secretary to make a Mark Sedwill: I think you highlight a very important statement before Parliament this afternoon. point, and one of the reasons or one of the factors that has not really come out either in Parliament or in the Q49 Chair: It was the timing that was influenced; is House today or in the Committee is that the formation that what you are telling the Committee? of the National Crime Agency is an important factor. Mark Sedwill: Yes, fundamentally it was timing. Give It has a border policing command, and that is one that those speeches had been made and so on, it made of the reasons that it makes sense to have a separate sense for the Home Secretary to come before enforcement and regulatory function for the Parliament on the first opportunity, which was this immigration system within the Home Office, because afternoon, in order to make this statement. that relationship with the National Crime Agency and its new responsibilities is a crucial part of essentially Q50 Mark Reckless: Is it usual for a Prime Minister tackling the enforcement problems and the gaps we or even a Deputy Prime Minister to make a major have in that in the future. So, that is another factor speech on a big area of policy immediately before a that was weighed in the decision of substance that the decision is taken, rather than immediately after? Home Secretary took. Mark Sedwill: Of course you will see if you read the Chair: Thank you. Mr Ellis has waited very patiently, Prime Minister’s speech carefully, he says that the and I am very grateful. Home Secretary will be bringing forward changes to the Border Agency. He was quite clear about that, but Q54 Michael Ellis: Gentlemen, can I posit a he did not want his own speech to be sort of wrapped suggestion to you? When two companies merge or in the structuring news, because he was making a split, for that matter, they do not make announcements much broader speech about immigration policy and to their shareholders before they are ready to make the Government’s policy as a whole, as was the such announcements, do they? Would you accept that Deputy Prime Minister. It is wrong to suggest that as a posited suggestion? It would be irresponsible, in somehow there is a series of conversations with the fact, to do so, to make incomplete announcements. Home Office to which no one else was privy and then You have been asked many questions on process. I Home Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 9

26 March 2013 Mark Sedwill, Rob Whiteman and Simon Hayes just want to try to crystallise it, if I may. Is it your Mark Sedwill: I do, yes. Mr Ellis, I agree, this was— position therefore that effectively there is a three-stage Chair: Mr Ellis has worked hard on this question, and process to this, that there is the decision-making I think a yes or a no is better than anything else. process, which you, Mr Sedwill, have said was Mark Sedwill: For the record, this was a properly months in the making, that pre-dates you as considered and appropriate decision. Permanent Secretary at the office for the Home Department, that had been ongoing before your arrival Q59 Michael Ellis: Yes, but the thrust of my point is there and that was going on for months? That is step the differentiation between these processes, the one. Step two is making an approval of the decision decision-making processes in something like this when that decision has been made, and step three is cannot be made on the back of an envelope; this has announcing that decision. Would you accept that? to take months to go through the complexities and Mark Sedwill: Yes. the legalities of it, and you are confirming that that is the case? Q55 Michael Ellis: So what your case is, if I can put Mark Sedwill: Indeed. it that way, is that the decision-making process had been going on for months, it well pre-dates this Q60 Michael Ellis: You have had discussions going honourable Committee’s recent report—but of course back months with the Home Secretary and others this Committee has produced several highly sceptical about it, is that right? reports, and rightly so, on the work of the UKBA— Mark Sedwill: Yes. but as a consequence perhaps of that and many other factors, and the dysfunctionality for years, I might Q61 Michael Ellis: Good. So, then the final approval add, of the UKBA since its inception, this decision was made and the announcement was made very was being considered. Is that right so far? Now, you shortly thereafter? are saying— Mark Sedwill: Yes. Chair: Mr Sedwill, you will have to say yes or no. Hansard does not record nods, even though— Q62 Michael Ellis: Right. This is all about process, Michael Ellis: Could you just say yes or no for the which is fascinating, but the reason why this decision record? has been made is that the UKBA has been a Mark Sedwill: Yes. I would not characterise it in fundamentally dysfunctional organisation; it has been exactly those words, but that is broadly correct. monolithic. Would you agree with that? The many Michael Ellis: But you agree that the decision-making hard-working staff within the organisation have been process has been going on for months? let down by its failed structure. Do you agree with Mark Sedwill: Yes. that? The structure of it has been inherently unsound. Mark Sedwill: That is why the Home Secretary has Q56 Michael Ellis: The final approval was made chosen to address just that question. only shortly before the announcement was made; is that effectively what you are saying? The final Q63 Michael Ellis: So, the essence of this decision approval, not the decision, because there seems to is about improving security at our borders; and do you have been some confusion about the difference believe in your position as Permanent Secretary at the between deciding to do something and announcing an Home Office, and do you believe, Mr Whiteman, in approval, so you are saying the final approval, the your position, that this decision will strengthen final signing-off was done and then the announcement security at the border? was made very shortly thereafter? Mark Sedwill: This decision, as part of a process of Mark Sedwill: Yes. modernisation, will do just that, including the earlier decision to create the Border Force and of course the Q57 Michael Ellis: Presumably it is considered good successful implementation of the decision the Home practice to make the announcement very soon after Secretary set out, yes. the final approval so as to avoid leaks? Mark Sedwill: That is part of the reason, but, as I Q64 Michael Ellis: Is it also a correct analysis to explained a few moments ago, with the proximity of suggest that by splitting this organisation in the way the Easter recess, the big speeches that have been that we have been talking about and the made, it made sense to announce this today. announcement that we have heard made, this is adopting something of, by its very nature, a more Q58 Michael Ellis: So, it was the right sequence for targeted approach than the UKBA—which as I say, I this announcement because of other speeches and have described as a rather monolithic organisation— because otherwise the House is about to go into two so you seem to have a situation going forward now and a half weeks of recess. So it was a calculated where legitimate visitors should be able to pass and appropriate decision in all the circumstances; a through legally more easily than they have been able properly considered decision? to hitherto and abusers of the system can be dealt with Mark Sedwill: Yes, I think so. appropriately? That is the essence behind this Chair: Sorry, only “think”? decision? Mark Sedwill: Yes. Mark Sedwill: Indeed. Absolutely. Chair: You are worrying us here. Michael Ellis: Thank you very much. Mark Sedwill: Yes. Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Ellis. That was Michael Ellis: I think you do agree, don’t you? very helpful. Ev 10 Home Affairs Committee: Evidence

26 March 2013 Mark Sedwill, Rob Whiteman and Simon Hayes

Q65 Bridget Phillipson: I broadly welcome the the least obvious but perhaps the most important part changes being suggested today, although it does seem of the change. a bit on the rushed side, but, amid all the structural change and Ministers taking a more direct role in how Q66 Bridget Phillipson: We do need to see the things are done, can we keep the focus on the need change you are talking about in terms of visas and it for cultural change in terms of what we are doing, being clear that Britain is open for business, that we because simply changing the names of departments want to attract people to come here and that they and creating new responsibilities for people does not should receive a good level of customer service, but in and of itself deliver the cultural change that we can I also ask that that same focus on cultural change need to see. I appreciate there will be legislation, but is also applied to how we deal with asylum legislation of course does not of course deliver applications, because there still remain big problems cultural change in and of itself, so can you just say a in that system? So, I would just ask that when that bit more about how this is anticipated to lead to the cultural change is being considered, clearly the Home cultural change that we all want to see given the Secretary has set out her focus on visas and wanting shortcomings that have arisen? to make Britain competitive, the somewhat hidden Mark Sedwill: I think this is, with respect, the most aspects of asylum applications, where we also need to important point of substance perhaps we have touched see cultural change, are included—and I hope that a on today so far, because this really does underlie the greater separation between enforcement and decision- reason for doing this. As the Home Secretary set out, making might support that cultural change. none of these elements have really functioned as Mark Sedwill: I think the Home Secretary picked up effectively as we would like, and so in creating the precisely that point in the House this afternoon, and new structures—and it is just the first step, for the you are absolutely right, as I think Mr Ellis was also reasons you set out, Ms Phillipson—we will have a indicating: institutional culture is the most important culture that is a customer service culture, focused on part of delivering the right kind of system. We have growth, focused on trying to work alongside UKTI, to get that right, and we believe this change will Visit Britain and others to deal with the people we facilitate that across the whole range of the business, want to visit the UK, do business here and bring their including asylum, absolutely. skills to the country. The aim of this is to create that culture, that customer service culture in the new visa Q67 Bridget Phillipson: One complaint that we as a and immigration operation, rather like the culture I Committee have raised consistently has been about the think we have seen created with real success in IPS, correspondence that Members of Parliament receive. where we were able to reduce the price of the passport Obviously we have seen improvement in the level of and we have had really strong customer service and information received by the Committee, but, now has been driven in some parts of it. Ministers are more hands-on and directly responsible, Then secondly you have a law enforcement culture, can we expect to see improvements in the and, as Mr Reckless pointed out earlier, that law correspondence and timeliness that Members of enforcement culture in the second command is a very Parliament can expect to receive? different kind of culture; it is a different sort of Mark Sedwill: That is very much our aim, and I think organisation. You recruit different kinds of people to that as Ministers demand—as I say, I can’t quite yet it, different skill-sets, and that needs to work very give you an answer on exactly which letters the closely alongside other law enforcement agencies, Minister would now reply to as opposed to officials. I including the new National Crime Agency. would expect to see some shift in the boundary there, Then of course it is important just to remember that but they will both still need to be involved, and yes, the Border Force, although that was brought out in the certainly our aim is to improve public service first phase of this change, has an important job to do generally, our service standards generally, not just to as well, and one of the successes of the merger into the applicant, but to MPs and others with an interest. what Mr Ellis described as a monolith was bringing together Customs and Immigration at the border, and Q68 Chair: When the Home Secretary referred to that has been a very real success. “closed, secretive and defensive” she was not talking Chair: Very helpful. about the buildings; she was talking about the culture Mark Sedwill: Sorry, just one final point, Mr that you just mentioned. Chairman. The fourth point about culture is the point Mark Sedwill: Yes, Mr Vaz. that Mr Whiteman made earlier: that we need Home Chair: But it seems to us, Mr Sedwill, that the same Office systems and law enforcement systems people who currently are involved in the Agency are generally, both IT, but people and individuals and all going to get jobs in the new units that are being casework as well, to integrate much more effectively. created. We have heard that Mr Whiteman is going to One of the things that struck me ever since I took this be Head of Transition. We have heard that the five job is I go around different parts of the Home Office, people who he has given a job to, members of the police forces and so on, and their systems do not, as executive board, are all going to keep their jobs in the you know, operate with each other very effectively. new organisation; they are not being told that they There are bottlenecks and glitches and mismatches have to go. Maybe you can confirm this: did you tell and overlaps and all the rest of it, and so that systems UKBA staff that they will still be doing the same job management, that systems integration, is another part in the same place and with the same colleagues for of the culture of this, and it is probably in some ways the same boss? Were those your words? Home Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 11

26 March 2013 Mark Sedwill, Rob Whiteman and Simon Hayes

Mark Sedwill: I see, Mr Chairman, that an internal clearly have my note to the staff, as there are communication to the Home Office has already made elsewhere in Government, to the corporate services it into the media and— functions across the Home Office that will be properly Chair: This is a Select Committee. We are not the integrated, and I would expect to see those deliver media. This is a Select Committee of the House. significant efficiencies, some of which will meet the Mark Sedwill: No, no, I know, but I am aware of overall spending constraint and some of which will where it has come from. Indeed, yes, yes. release people into front-line functions. So it is not Chair: Did you say that they would still be doing the that forever everybody will be doing exactly what same job in the same place with the same colleagues they are doing now, but, for the reasons you have set for the same boss? out, the announcement today by the Home Secretary Mark Sedwill: Yes. will not have been expected yet by staff, because of course we have to tell Parliament first. Q69 Chair: So, what is going to change? It sounds Chair: Of course. very odd to me. The Home Secretary has called it Mark Sedwill: Therefore what we have to do is “closed, secretive and defensive”. When you have explain to staff what this means for them and what talked in answer to Bridget Phillipson about a change this means for them in the immediate future, just as of culture, you said it was the only point of substance the change to the Border Force did, is that most of you felt we have raised today, and yet you are telling them will be doing the same job, but we will expect the staff that it is the same people in the same jobs many of them to do it in a different way, and that is with the same boss. It does not sound to me like much the big change that we will— is changing except branding. Mark Sedwill: Mr Chairman, first, if I may say so, Q73 Chair: Faster. You want them to do it faster you are taking a single sentence out of a and more— communication that I was seeking to explain— Mark Sedwill: Faster, better, more responsive and Chair: Tell us more, then. more effective. Mark Sedwill:—to our own staff the overall changes to the Home Office, but in a sense the answer is in Q74 Chair: So, it is a motivational thing? one of the questions you have already put, and the Mark Sedwill: No, it is not just that. It is a systems Home Secretary put in the House. We don’t believe element as well. the problem with the Agency is the individuals who Chair: Two quick questions; I know you have to go, work for it. The structures and culture of the Agency and we have kept you long enough, I think. has resulted in this closed, secretive and defensive culture, and it is in making the institutional changes Q75 Dr Huppert: Just following up, Rob, you were that we will enable the individuals of the Agency to extremely coy about what your future might hold and do a better job. But most people— what the role might be, but I have just had an email sent 35 minutes ago from you to all UKBA partners Q70 Chair: So, everyone is guaranteed their job? saying that you will be, “Leading a new Home Office- Mark Sedwill: No, Mr Chairman, not everyone and wide operational systems management command, not forever, of course not, but we are talking about an bringing together strategy and assurance, operations agency here of 17,000 people, we are talking about and resources and organisational development”. I the Home Office, and this was a communication to the presume you knew about that and just were not telling Home Office from me generally, because we are the Committee. Is that accurate? making some other changes to the Home Office, not Rob Whiteman: I believe I did tell the Committee just the Agency, at the same time. The vast majority exactly that in my evidence earlier. I said I would of people will next month and beyond be doing be taking a role in order to ensure that the systems exactly what I set out there. management across these operational areas is properly conducted, and Mr Sedwill has also said how I would Q71 Chair: Sorry, the same job? be leading the transition from UKBA to the new Mark Sedwill: Yes. organisations. If I may, Chairman, I would say that the important thing is I think the message that has Q72 Chair: The Committee supports what the Home been given to staff today is the right one. There is Secretary has done. I congratulated her in the House change, and the Home Secretary believes that today, but it only matters if things are going to change, changing the governance and the structure of UKBA so if you are not changing the buildings and you are will improve performance through a focus of different not changing the people, how do you change a culture commands with different cultures, but the message to that is “closed, secretive and defensive”? Who makes front-line staff is that tomorrow they carry on with the the culture in an organisation other than the people same job and not to unduly alarm them, because the who run it? work that they are carrying out so vitally carries on Mark Sedwill: The culture is both the people and the within new management structures I think is entirely organisation, and by— the right message to give. Chair: But you are not changing either. Chair: To be fair to Dr Huppert, though you did say Mark Sedwill: Yes, we are. Yes, we are. We are some of those words, the memo that you sent to your changing the overall structure—this is part of the staff was quite specific, more than you have told the modernisation process—and there will be some very Committee, but you have now clarified it, and we are significant changes to come, in particular, since you very grateful for that clarification. Ev 12 Home Affairs Committee: Evidence

26 March 2013 Mark Sedwill, Rob Whiteman and Simon Hayes

Q76 Mr Winnick: Given the leaked memos, the one Q79 Chair: This Committee has seen three quoted by the Chair—and, as you said, it had been Permanent Secretaries at the Home Office; of course leaked, and what we were discussing earlier on when the last one went off to the National Trust very the announcements were made and so on—I am just dramatically. We hope that you will be around long wondering, Mr Sedwill, bearing in mind the Home enough to see this transformation take place, not just Secretary described UKBA, “closed, secretive and on immigration but also on policing. Do you think defensive culture”, whether you really think the two that your role as ambassador for Afghanistan prepared new organisations are being set up in the right and you for your period as Permanent Secretary at the appropriate way? Home Office? Mark Sedwill: I think they are being set up in the best Mark Sedwill: There was a reference in one of the way we can, and, as Mr Ellis pointed out earlier, in news articles at the time along the lines, if I can deal the private sector, when you are dealing with with the Taliban, I may be equipped. I believe I am. shareholders, you have the luxury of more control Although I have only done the job for a couple of over the media scrutiny and the communications months, and I hope I do do it for four or five years, environment. I think, as the emails you are reading because I think that is the right kind of period for a have just demonstrated, one of the reasons we have Permanent Secretary—but of course that is out of my to seek to inform Parliament at the earliest possible hands—I do intend to try to oversee the opportunity once a decision of this significance has transformation of the Home Office. As you will see been taken is that otherwise something will leak out from the emails you have about the announcement and the Committee will very rightly ask us why this today on the UKBA, which of course is by far the was not communicated to Parliament. Once the most newsworthy component of this, it is only one decision was taken to make this statement today, we part of an overall programme to modernise the Home worked very hard and pretty quickly to get out the Office and make it more responsive to the needs of communications to staff and our key stakeholders as the time, and I want to see that through. well in order to be able to give them the best information that we can, recognising that there is still Q80 Chair: You have been very helpful, because you quite a lot of the details to be filled in in order to have come at very short notice to tell us about these ensure that we land the actual changes of substance changes, but you can probably accept from the that this Committee is seeking, and rightly so. questions the Committee has asked you that we are concerned about the need for a smooth transition. I personally, and I think Members of the Committee Q77 Mr Winnick: One further question: when the who spoke in the House today, support what the Home Select Committee decides to have a hearing, as we Secretary has done. We are troubled a little by the have done over the years, on UKBA, can we take it sequence of events over the last few days, and we may that you, from time to time, if not regularly, will also well write to the Home Secretary to follow up some be appearing before us in view of the fact that you are of this sequence because we find that it may well have chairing the appropriate board? been a little chaotic in the way in which things were Mark Sedwill: Absolutely. I would expect, Mr done. But we accept your explanation that you needed Winnick, you to ask me and scrutinise me on all of to get this out before Parliament rose and that gave the Home Office’s operations and policy and services, you a very small window. We accept that this was and of course I appear before the Public Accounts done because of two major speeches by the Deputy Committee as well on value-for-money issues. I am Prime Minister and the Prime Minister, and of course, delighted to appear before you at your convenience. though we cannot claim credit for this with our Select Committee report, we are delighted that you have read Q78 Mr Winnick: At the end of it all, you will be the report, because this Committee intends to continue responsible more than anyone who will be appointed to scrutinise the Home Office in exactly the same way; to the new organisation? You will be the ultimate even though the name has changed of these agencies head, subject of course to the Home Secretary. The and it is part of your remit now, we will do it in buck will stop with you. exactly the same way. I think under Mr Whiteman, Mark Sedwill: Yes, subject of course to the Minister’s and I have to say this, the quality of information that overall responsibility, but that is the case now. I am we have received from the UKBA has improved the principal accounting officer for the whole of the immeasurably from the letters we used to receive from Home Office. As Chief Executive, Mr Whiteman is Lin Homer, so we are getting there in terms of accounting officer for the Agency, so he is already information. Indeed on the last occasion, Mr under my management, and I already bear that Whiteman, you actually sent me your letter on time, responsibility as a whole. As we have discussed, and but sadly the woman who co-ordinates this has now as I think you pointed out in the House, Mr Chairman, been promoted and is now no longer doing this job. the Agency was never a genuine arm’s length body, But as far as we are concerned, proper scrutiny, timely partly because of the continuing policy and case-work information—we are all on the same side here, and responsibility Ministers retained. we hope that you will find that we are allies in what From that point of view, my responsibilities are the you are trying to do. I know you have very important same as before, but inevitably I will be more directly business that you interrupted to come here, Mr concerned in the implementation of this programme Sedwill; we are most grateful. than I would have been had we not made the changes. Mark Sedwill: Thank you. Home Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 13

26 March 2013 Mark Sedwill, Rob Whiteman and Simon Hayes

Chair: We are going to carry on a little bit longer and they write back and they do not know about these with Mr Whiteman, because we feel we have not done cases. It is because they have not been loaded on to him justice for the other work that he is doing, but the computer. thank you very much, and we look forward to seeing Rob Whiteman: When I appeared at the Committee you on 30 April. last time, Chairman, you will remember that I told you Mark Sedwill: Mr Chairman, thank you. I look that in temporary migration the cases not loaded on forward to that as well. Please accept my apologies if the system was 50,000, and, allowing for temporary a somewhat chaotic explanation gave the impression and permanent migration together, that stood at of a chaotic process; it genuinely was not. 59,000, but I gave you an assurance that we would Chair: No, we got there in the end. put a plan of action in place. I am pleased to tell you Mark Sedwill: It genuinely was not, and that is my that those figures now stand at 5,000 1cases. fault for not explaining it well enough under the Committee’s scrutiny. Q83 Chair: So, not 61,000? Chair: Well, it is your first time. You will be better Rob Whiteman: That was at the time of writing. I told next time. you we would have a plan of action. As of today, the Mark Sedwill: I apologise for that. But thank you very number of cases not loaded on the system is 5,000. much for your time. Q84 Chair: Down from 61,000? Q81 Chair: Thank you, Mr Sedwill. Could we have Rob Whiteman: To 5,000, yes. Mr Hayes here please to the dais? We are going to get through the rest of these matters very quickly and, Mr Q85 Chair: How did you do that, and why was it not Whiteman, we rely on you; since you are one of the done before? great survivors of all these re-organisations, you must Rob Whiteman: As I advised you last time, we put a be doing something well, so well done. But we want plan of action in place in order to focus on different quick answers, because we have factual questions. elements of the backlog at different times. We have The first thing we want to do is to show you our last brought down radically the cases not loaded on the report; I am sure you have seen it. As you know, we system. I am also pleased to tell you that for have at the end of the report a supergrid of backlogs, sponsorship and Tiers 2 and 5 we are within service which of course is one of the important aspects of the standard within a week or two. We are making very work that we do. We want you to look at that grid and good progress on Tier 4, and there are two areas of we want you to take it away with you; you might work where it will take longer to be back in service regard this as homework. Could you please write to standard, but these are areas where we have seen us and tell us if there are any other backlogs that are potential abuse of the system in working on the not on that grid that we need to be aware of, simply backlog, and you will be aware that the Government because we do not want to be in the same position as made rule changes to Tier 1 before Christmas. We we were in respect of your predecessor of finding out have also set a different service standard for human there were certain items that were not told to this rights family cases because in working on the backlog Committee. So, you can either tell us now, or you can we see that there is a fair amount of abuse taking take that away and during the April recess write to us place. I hope the figures I have just given you in terms and tell us further figures. of those areas show that we are back in service Rob Whiteman: I will do that gladly, Chairman. I standard and that cases are now loaded on the system hope I can help in two ways: one is I will gladly give in time. This is progress since last time. The Home you any broader information that you want, but also I Office now has much left to do, but we have made will help to clarify some of the figures on this table, some progress. which are probably not backlogs, and I hope I can advise the Committee accordingly. One of the figures Q86 Chair: You have made progress if you have on here—for example, the applications not processed reduced it from 61,000 down to 5,000. I just wonder in time—relates to details we gave you of work being why they went ahead and abolished you, since you out of service standard, not that it has not been done, were making such a big inroad into the backlog. But so that work has been done and does not form part of we will not reopen that again. We will give you a little our work. Similarly, one of the other figures given bit of a rest. here duplicates one of the other figures, so I think I Mr Hayes, we want to talk to you about the can give you clarification of this as well on the International Directorate, which we regard as one of question that you asked. the best parts of the UKBA, so we hope in all this transition and modernisation, and all this kind of stuff, Q82 Chair: Because looking at the figures, you have that we do not do any damage to it in the process. I just written to us in your letter and informed us that gather you have been appointed as the Acting the number of cases in the live asylum cohort has gone Director. up from 28,500 to 33,500, an increase of 5,000, and Simon Hayes: That is right. the live immigration cases have gone up from 4,000 to 7,000, an increase of 3,000 cases. The number of Q87 Chair: We have just come back from an cases that are not loaded on to the computer we find overseas trip where we looked at your immigration irritating and upsetting, because as Members of hubs in Dubai, we looked at Doha, and we also looked Parliament we write to the UKBA through our 1 Witness note: this figure fluctuates on a daily basis as new account managers and we ask for progress on cases, cases come in and uninput cases are put on the system. Ev 14 Home Affairs Committee: Evidence

26 March 2013 Mark Sedwill, Rob Whiteman and Simon Hayes at Abu Dhabi. I personally was very impressed with whereby we will run those interviews by video what I saw. We looked at the visa application centres, conference from a new hub in Sheffield to our we were very impressed with the work that was going outsourced visa application centres, and people will on there. You certainly have a very good relationship be interviewed at the point at which they give their with them. Visa times were processed very quickly, biometrics. and we want to pass on our thanks to Carol Doughty The results of those interviews will not lead and Mandy Ivemy and all the other members of staff immediately to a decision. The report of the interview who helped us. will go to the decision maker at the overseas hub Can I ask you about the decision to remove the right where the expertise will still reside, and they will be of appeal for family visitors and the concern that this able to consider that report as part of the evidence in Committee has about what might be in the future a coming to a decision or—and I think this is real problem? The Home Secretary in the House important—they will be able to ask that applicant on yesterday, in the Home Office questions, repeated this the basis of concerns that might have been raised from view that the reason why there are so many appeals is the report of the initial credibility interview to come that the information only comes in after the in to the hub for a face-to-face, more in-depth application has been refused. Do you foresee any interview at that point. problems—and be careful in your answer because we So, that is the way in which we are trying to square will use it against you if there are any—as a result of the circle of doing more interviews with an the abolition of the right of appeal and the fact that infrastructure that perhaps was not quite built for it people will either be asked to reapply and therefore but most importantly not slowing down the process put more pressure on the entry clearance officers or for the applicant so that we can keep up with our they will come to MPs and we will write in and ask customer service processing. why it has been refused? Do you see any possibility of any difficulties? Q90 Chair: We did put to the Immigration Minister Simon Hayes: I have to say, Mr Chairman, purely the thought that we needed a more robust review from an operational perspective, leaving aside the given that the right of appeal is being taken away— rights or wrongs of whether there should be a right of that between refusal and reapplication there needs to appeal, I think we believe that will be manageable, in be a more robust approach—and he said he would part because we believe that it is easier and quicker to look at this, and we certainly are keen to see whether process a new application, especially if new evidence this could be done; either a hub in London or is being submitted with the application, than it is to somewhere else in the United Kingdom onshore, administer the current appeal system. where some of these cases can be reviewed. The difficulty is telling applicants again and again, “Apply Q88 Chair: Do you have any concerns about the again, pay your fee, put in your new documents”, current way in which the visa applications are made whereas perhaps one or two documents is all that is and the relationship between the visa application required, because I have not seen any evidence that centres and the embassies? ECOs or ECMs ring up applicants and say, “Actually Simon Hayes: I do not think we have huge problems. this document is missing and therefore submit the I think it has been quite a success story. We were the document and I will grant the visa”; this just does not first country in the world to introduce a system where happen. So I do not know where this anecdotal we outsourced as much of the process as we have evidence comes from. What we find is refusal, they done and we think it has worked well, and other come and see their Members of Parliament, we write countries have followed our lead on it. I hope from in, and the paper trail begins again. So, we put it to what you saw in the Gulf, that you saw evidence that Ministers. it was working well. We get good feedback from our Rob Whiteman: Ministers are looking at this. As Mr customers, and we work very hard alongside our Hayes said, we think it is in the interests of the partners to make sure that the relationships are in the applicant that the appeal is coming to an end. People right place. can reapply for a visa, and we will process that in 15 days, an appeals process can take eight months and Q89 Chair: We were very impressed. One of the very often in the majority of cases where it does go things we pressed on your predecessors is the need for to appeal it is on the basis of new information that has more face-to-face interviews, and the worry is that if been submitted. As the Home Secretary said to the you have more face-to-face interviews then that will House yesterday, while the appeal right will go, where require more staff and more staff are not available. we receive letters from MPs, we will of course always Tell us about what is happening in Sheffield and the look to ensure that there is a robust check of the case. new centre you set up there to deal with overseas If our decision has been made on the basis that people cases. have not provided certain evidence and they have, if Simon Hayes: As the Committee will know, the there is an administrative mistake on our part, then of Home Secretary asked us to undertake many more course we would look at the case again. We are interviews this year than we have ever done before. looking at the arrangements for dealing with MPs’ In order to do that, in recognition of the issue that you correspondence, as I know the Minister has told you, have described about making sure that we can keep and on the whole we will look at having hubs and the process running, not make it too inconvenient for those account managers that work with your officers applicants, we put in place a new way of doing a all the time having responsibility for those letters, particular type of interview, a credibility interview, rather than passing them into the business where it Home Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 15

26 March 2013 Mark Sedwill, Rob Whiteman and Simon Hayes may take longer. So, we are looking at strengthening confident that the Tier 1 application is well founded, the account manager role that supports you and we will be processing these within service standard making sure that we can look at those cases robustly. by after Easter. Where we wish to use the new rules that were set Q91 Chair: Finally from me, Mr Hayes, it is before Christmas for a credibility interview, because important that one understands that when people come we have seen a very large spike in Tier 1 applications to see Members of Parliament in their surgeries they for switching where we can see by the nature of them think we are the last resort. They have already tried that there is abuse taking place with a high refusal other methods to try to sort issues out. But at the rate, then they will take longer to process, and we moment, the relationship between London and Doha thought it important not to process them until the rule or Dubai or Mumbai—what we picked up from the change was made. We will now process those ECOs is they are put under a lot of pressure to reply applications, and we will deal with them before the to MPs’ representations in two days, whereas the summer. But it is important, Dr Huppert, to say that system does not take two days to get back to us. where through the triaging of cases that we make, we Secondly, that decisions to grant visas are sent by post think that this is a Tier 1 application that is and the ECOs were saying if they came electronically, straightforward and we do not think there are any then they would be able to grant the visas quicker, and concerns where we need the new rules, then they are that would cut down on the correspondence from being processed as of now, as of the other side of MPs. Would you look at that please? Easter, within the usual service standard, and we have Simon Hayes: Yes, absolutely. triaged that work and we are treating it differently.

Q92 Dr Huppert: Firstly, the Chair is absolutely Q93 Dr Huppert: The Immigration Minister in his right to refer to the importance of a review process now infamous written statement on Thursday said working, if I can emphasise that. I think it needs to be that, “I expect the Agency to be operating within independent of MPs’ involvement. I had a constituent service standards by spring 2013”. Spring is late in whose brother could not visit him because he did not coming, I agree. Exactly when do you think spring have enough money to pay for the expenses and will be, and when do you think the Minister because they were concerned, because of the civil war reasonably expects you to be operating within in Libya, he might not go back, which both sound like service standards? reasonable explanations, except for the fact that the Rob Whiteman: Other than the Tier 1 issue that I have ECO had clearly miscalculated his income, because if just spoken to you about, and the human rights you look at the two numbers and divide one by the applications of family, where again we have separated other you do not get the third answer, and he had family into four different areas, and one of those areas never been to Libya in his life so was rather surprised is where we see that abuse is taking place—in fact that it could have any bearing. There needs to be a with a very high refusal rate, over 60%—we will be simple way. It should not require an MP to say, “Hang back to within service standard within weeks, after on, there is something wrong here.” I presume you Easter, and we have made good progress and the would agree with that; I am not looking for detailed workload has come down. answers on that. In Tier 1 where we wish to interview and in Tier 4, I would like to ask about the areas where things still human rights applications2, we will take beyond the are not going so well. Mr Whiteman highlighted the spring and probably into the summer, in order to get fact that some areas are going well, but if you look at them back within service standard. Tier 1 and Tier 4 in-country visa applications, there is not a pretty picture. The latest figures you have given Q94 Dr Huppert: We look forward to seeing that. us, Mr Whiteman, in the letter say 10% of Tier 1 visas What about people who have been here legally for 10 are processed within four weeks against a service years applying for leave to remain, because I have a standard of 90%; Tier 4 we are at 21%. That is pretty constituent—I just had all these people who came to appallingly poor, particularly given that Tier 1 is supposed to be the brightest and the best. What is see me on Saturday—who applied on 3 September taking so long to make a decision? 2012, having been here perfectly legally for 10 years, with a highly skilled job, still waiting for an answer, Simon Hayes: I think that refers to the in-country applications. and a contact at the Borders Agency said, “We will try to get you an answer by the end of May.” Again I Rob Whiteman: As we have said, Dr Huppert, we think this is a four-week service standard. Is this a have had backlogs of work in temporary migration. Since the time of writing to you some of those areas one-off, or is that also going to be caught up with by are now more up to date—as I covered earlier, and I the end of Easter? will not repeat my answer. Rob Whiteman: I cannot answer on this individual On Tier 1, what we see is a differentiation where we case. are seeing use of Tier 1 as perhaps an application of Dr Huppert: Not on the individual but on other cases last resort where applications to other parts of the like it. immigration system have failed, and what often Rob Whiteman: What I have said is that other than happens with immigration case-work, as you will those family applications and other than where we know, is that where policy tightens up in one area in believe switching has occurred within Tier 1 we will order to close down the abuse of that area, the 2 Witness note: These human rights applications are family, applicants can move to another. Where we are not Tier 4 applications. Ev 16 Home Affairs Committee: Evidence

26 March 2013 Mark Sedwill, Rob Whiteman and Simon Hayes be up to date within weeks, the other side of Easter, different. It is important to point out they have not and we have made good progress. had the benefit in-country of the visa application Dr Huppert: We will check all of those, I am sure. centres that we were just talking about that have Rob Whiteman: I will write to the Committee, helped with the processing and the streaming of Chairman, as you asked me to do. applications. Chair: Thank you. But also it is fair to say that over the years we have developed some systems for managing cases that are Q95 Dr Huppert: When it comes to people who quite effective, in part because for very good and have paid the huge extra premiums—it could be well justifiable reasons we are not allowed to get away with over £1,000 for premier service with a 24-hour any major delays in our out-of-country processing scale—will you be able to hit that 24-hour turnaround because of the problems that will cause for with as well within a few weeks? people coming to the country, which would be a major Rob Whiteman: Yes, we will. We have had some issue. So, we spend a lot of time on it, and what we difficulties with premium appointments where agents would like to do now—and I am sure Mr Whiteman have—I think this has been reported in the media— will have something to say about this—is try to spread tried to harvest those appointments in order to get hold some of that best practice from overseas to the in- of them in advance, and we have put three measures country operation. In fact, we have begun that work in place: one around rule changes to take more of the in Sheffield. We have a new team in Sheffield, which fee upfront; secondly, IT changes on the websites or does a very small number of out-of-country settlement web addresses where that harvesting comes from; and applications at the moment, and we have tried to use thirdly, some other operational issues, which probably some of that team to review some of the processes in I will not go into detail here, because it deals with Sheffield, while they overhaul that operation. overcoming the abuse that has taken place. But given Rob Whiteman: I would add to that that indeed Mr those three things, together with extending the Hayes has been very helpful in terms of talking opening hours for some of our PEOs to 12 hours from through with our operations in Sheffield concerning 8.00am to 8.00pm with more appointments available, temporary migration some of the techniques that are I would expect by the end of May/early June the used overseas for streaming and improving problems that we have had with premium productivity to build that into the way that we work appointments to have been finally resolved by both in our in-country operation. As you say, Mr Reckless, dealing with the demand issues and ending the way there is a difference there. That is partly explained, as that agents have been acting, but also with increasing Mr Hayes said, by a different cohort and a different the supply of premium appointments. type of intake, but there is good practice definitely that we can learn from our overseas operations and Q96 Dr Huppert: Just to be clear, that means by, I build that into in-country. think you said, the end of May people will be able to get premium appointments reasonably rather than Q99 Mark Reckless: You mentioned cohort and having to desperately hunt for them, and they will get intake, and I assume that was a reference to the visa the decision made within the 24 hours they have applications, but I wonder: is there also a different paid for— cohort intake, perhaps type of staff, that you are using Rob Whiteman: Within the service standard. in the in-country versus out-of-country and whether Dr Huppert:—which they are currently not doing? there are any lessons one might apply from that? Rob Whiteman: Yes. That has been quite a large Rob Whiteman: Mr Hayes and I discussed this a great operation in order to put that right. As I say, it has deal. Looking at the difference in productivity figures, involved people—I use the word “attacking” our sites our overseas staff do get through quite a lot of cases in order to harvest appointments. but maintain good decision quality, and in our temporary migration operations actually they are more Q97 Mark Reckless: Mr Hayes, the International complex cases, and we do have to carry out more Directorate has had a better record of meeting and checks, but in terms of some of the culture around the indeed sometimes exceeding its performance ability to make a good decision quickly and to not standards. Is it right for the most recent quarter that necessarily over-engineer the way it is done because you have been able to hit the target of processing 98% it might not add to the final quality of the decision— within 30 days for every class of visa application? we think there is definitely something there, and we Simon Hayes: I believe so. I know that we have hit think it is interesting to compare the two and to get our 15-day target for 90%, and I believe we hit the the managers to speak. 98% for 30 days as well. Q100 Mark Reckless: There was a pretty critical Q98 Mark Reckless: Why do you believe it is that report by John Vine in 2010 of the visa processing the International Directorate has developed a better hub in Abu Dhabi. When the Committee recently record of hitting those targets than has been the case visited, we were very impressed both by the morale for the in-country applications? but also by the seemingly efficient operation of the Simon Hayes: There are a range of factors that apply. service there, and I wonder if I might just ask you to First of all, in-country applications are different types pass on the compliments of the Committee following of visas, different types of cases, and they do not that visit. process visitor visas by definition. There are aspects Rob Whiteman: I will gladly do that. Both of us will of the risk associated with them that are slightly do that and I know your visit was greatly welcomed Home Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 17

26 March 2013 Mark Sedwill, Rob Whiteman and Simon Hayes and the interest that you showed in the visiting visa Q103 Chair: Mr Whiteman, I am sorry to interrupt; hub, and we will pass that on, Mr Reckless. we are not talking about pillars here. This is not some Chair: We were a little jealous of the Saudis; they great European Union event. All Mr Winnick wants have a very good visa application centre, which VFS to do, and I am delighted to hear it from him, because has just opened for them. I am not saying that we he, like me, is not very good at this stuff, is just send should compete with it, because obviously we do not an email. You do not have to wait for it to change have as much money as the Saudi Arabian overnight, just send an email. Can we not send an Government, but it was certainly the place where email when someone has been successful in getting a people could go and visit. So, yes, I endorse fully visa rather than putting it in the post? what Mr Reckless has said. It is an excellent operation Rob Whiteman: All I want to do is answer yes, out there. Chairman, that we want to be able to do that and will work toward it. Chair: Excellent, that is a perfect answer. Q101 Mr Winnick: We live in the electronic age, as Mr Winnick: Work towards it? I do not think that I am constantly told by those who would say they are shows much optimism. younger than I am, but what is difficult to understand is why is it necessary to send hard copies between the Q104 Chair: As you know, we have been reading out UK and the overseas post, which causes further delay your emails today, so it is quite simple to do. Mr in an organisation, which of course has been criticised Hayes, this could be your great moment in history. so harshly, certainly by us and by others for delays. They could be putting up a statue to you. Rather than Why not do it all electronically? Is it a particular walking towards the great pillars of change, will you purpose in resorting to hard copy? look at sending an email to say, “Your visa has been Rob Whiteman: No, I think your challenge is a very granted”? This is a humble request from Members of good one, Mr Winnick. We see the need in order to the Select Committee. make the manual systems and the hard-copy systems Mr Winnick: You have got round to the typewriter work well— by now, I take it. Mr Winnick: I think electronic things are going on Simon Hayes: Yes, we will take that on board, between us. definitely. Rob Whiteman:—but as we strengthen our IT and we strengthen our contracts, then working electronically Q105 Dr Huppert: Can I just have a look at a couple or digitally and scanning documents in to support of issues around asylum cases? I will not go through online applications will happen. The majority of our all the details—your response previously says some visa applications are made online, and so, being able things did not add up—but what I do not understand to deal with the supporting documentation digitally is what is happening with the wait for six months rather than pass hard copies around is, of course, the because it seems, from the figures that you provided, direction we want to go in, and it is about there has been a very substantial increase for about strengthening the resilience and capability of our 3,500 asylum cases waiting more than six months for underlying systems, as Mr Sedwill said earlier, and an initial decision to something more like 6,000, in indeed as the Home Secretary said in her speech the latest quarter, of people waiting more than six earlier in the House. We recognise that some of the months for an initial decision. I hope you would agree systems that underpin our operations need it is unacceptable. We should be trying to make these improvement and we think, as we transform those decisions correctly and quickly, and people should not systems, that Mr Hayes and other operational be waiting six months for an answer from the Border managers will be able to have better tools at their Agency. disposal. Rob Whiteman: I understand that point and agree with it, Dr Huppert. It is interesting, is it not, that, looking at the figures that I give you, while the Q102 Mr Winnick: Electronic communications have conclusions within six months are not as strong, been around for quite a time now; 75%, 80% at least conclusions within 12 months have continued to of all the correspondence I receive from constituents improve, in fact up from 56% in 2010/11 to 63% in is emails. When my colleagues were in Dubai they 2011/12, so in terms of dealing with things within 12 discovered—I was not with them—that much of the months we have got better, even allowing for the fact processing was still being done in hard copy, so can that the figures for six months are less strong. What we work on the basis that with the new organisation, we need to do is have a balanced work in progress and what have you, that all this will be changed where the cases that we can deal with in three months pretty quickly? we deal with more effectively. Rob Whiteman: Yes, Mr Winnick. It was one of the But I do of course understand the point that you made, four pillars that the Home Secretary set out earlier in that a priority of trying to deal with these cases in a the House as to why change is needed and what has timely way is important. gone wrong with the UKBA. Please be assured that we are absolutely clear that our IT and our systems Q106 Dr Huppert: Sorry, you are just talking about need improvement. They will not change overnight. A conclusions, whereas I am talking about initial great deal of work needs to be made in order to decisions, and there is a difference between those two. change those systems. We do recognise the challenge We can come on to conclusions later if you would that you set. like, but the initial decision, the first response from Ev 18 Home Affairs Committee: Evidence

26 March 2013 Mark Sedwill, Rob Whiteman and Simon Hayes the Borders Agency, is frequently taking more than Q109 Dr Huppert: In this case the extra information six months. Surely that is not acceptable, and that is is not from a judicial review process. It is the fact that entirely within your hands. That is not to do with we sent people back and they were tortured, which is whether you can get people into another country, and quite a substantial piece of new information. My it is not to do with whether people choose to leave; it question was about the Government assurances that is people waiting for an answer from you. there is no substantiated evidence that Tamils forcibly Rob Whiteman: Yes, that is quite right; we are removed to Sri Lanka had been mistreated, which is committed to concluding cases as quickly as possible. what Alistair Burt was saying, I assume based on Dr Huppert: Yes, but the asylum initial decision. information from you. Do you accept now that there Rob Whiteman: Yes, but for the initial decision is in fact substantiated evidence that Tamils forcibly asylum cases are often complex and require thorough removed to Sri Lanka have been mistreated, as evidenced by the fact we have taken 13 of them and consideration. It is important that the process is not said, “Yes, you can come here because you were rushed by the nature of the case and given that the tortured”? intake that we have can change from year to year, it Rob Whiteman: The Home Office will continue to is important that we consider them properly. look at information that comes to light. Dr Huppert: Such as the fact that we have let 13 Q107 Dr Huppert: You think that six months is a people back in after they were mistreated. rush to consider these applications? Rob Whiteman: I would refer to what I said earlier. Rob Whiteman: No, I think you want to be better at dealing with initial decisions within six months. Q110 Steve McCabe: Just before we move on, I just want to ask on the back of the asylum questions, Mr Q108 Dr Huppert: Certainly my view is it is not Whiteman, about the Case Audit and Assurance Unit. acceptable for them to take more than six months for I am still writing to you—I am sure lots of other an initial decision. people are—about folk whose cases have been sent Can I just quickly ask about another issue we have there and appeared to have disappeared into a black discussed, which is about Sri Lankans and Tamils, hole. We get constant assurances that they are being because we have discussed this in the past. You dealt with, sometimes we get told that there is an presumably are aware of the freedom of information officer looking at them, but they never come back. I request that was made by Freedom from Torture, am just wondering if there is any way today you can which found that there were 15 Sri Lankan nationals tell us how many cases are up there being looked at, who, having been rejected status here initially, were and when am I going to get some evidence that some sent back to Sri Lanka and then came back here saying of them are being resolved? In some ways I do not they had been tortured after they had been returned almost care how they are resolved. I would like them and were then given status here. I think you have since resolved—either people will be given a legal and changed the answer of your FOI—there should have proper right to remain here or be told that right does been 13 rather than 15. The point is there are a number not exist and, “You are going back”, but it is the fact of people who we sent back to a country who were that they seem to disappear into a black hole. then tortured we have since had to let in. Do you stand Also, can I just ask, when is the Agency or the new unit within the Home Office going to start advising behind previous Government assurances there is no people when they have lost their passport and other substantiated evidence that Tamils forced to be documents rather than waiting for an MP to write and relocated to Sri Lanka have been mistreated, because discover this? When an MP does write and discover five days before the FOI response, the Foreign Office it, when are you going to start paying people Minister, Alistair Burt, was giving reassurances to the compensation for this, because this just seems to me Sri Lankan press, presumably based on information to be a stream of work that has been generated by the from you? Given that we have now accepted these 13 fact that the Case Audit and Assurance Unit never people were in fact tortured and we have given them resolves cases, it loses documents hand over fist, and asylum, why were we assuring the Sri Lankans they never tells anybody until you ferret it out of them and were not? then it does not compensate anybody. I am not Rob Whiteman: Dr Huppert, we have confidence that surprised the Home Secretary said she had had our decision-making processes are of high quality and enough, because nearly everybody else has. that if we make returns, we believe that we have taken Chair: Quick replies to those questions, please. all proper information into consideration at that time. Rob Whiteman: So the Case Assurance Unit, as you If subsequently other information comes to light and know, Mr McCabe, is now called the Older Live therefore a reverse decision is made, it does not, with Cases Unit. respect, mean that the initial decision was wrong. We Steve McCabe: I know that, but your staff do not make decisions based on the information that we have know that in their latest letter to me. available to us at the time and the quality of asylum Rob Whiteman: Mr Winnick and the Committee said decision making is strong. If later on we find out that to us last time we ought to call it something that it more information has come to light or has come to does on the tin, and therefore we— light through judicial process, which was not Steve McCabe: You should send them a memo about considered at the time, and therefore applicants are it so that they know as well. brought back, we still believe that the quality of our Rob Whiteman: We have tried to do that. In terms of initial decision is right. the asylum cases and the migration cases that are now Home Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 19

26 March 2013 Mark Sedwill, Rob Whiteman and Simon Hayes left following the closure of the Controlled Archive, given4. Therefore we think that the important thing there is around 40,000 cases and we are working is, as I said to you before, that we have training through a large sample3 of those cases in order to packages, both for medical practitioner or guidance, give realistic timescales for how long those 40,000 and we have reissued guidance, and we also have cases will now take to close, and I imagine that the training packages for case-workers in order to make next time the Home Office gives evidence on this we sure that the consideration that they give to those Rule will be able to give you a better estimate. 35 reports is as thorough as possible. As I said in answer to you last time, we have put a lot of work in Q111 Steve McCabe: I do not want to drag this out, place in order to make sure that we have training for but can I just check: when you are saying you are case-workers and that we take Rule 35 seriously. working on a large sample in order to work out how I do think that the difference between the number of long it will take, what is a large sample? reports that we receive and the number of people that Rob Whiteman: I do not have those figures to hand, we decide to release in relation to that is because the I will gladly write to the Committee, Mr McCabe. reports themselves pass on the information, the Steve McCabe: Would you? medical practitioner passes on the information, Rob Whiteman: Yes. The questions that you make including what at times will be unsubstantiated about lost documents: yes, we take that very seriously. claims, and the case-worker has to consider that. We know that in the past there have been problems with document-tracking. We are introducing a means Q114 Bridget Phillipson: But the numbers are very of keeping better tabs on documents, including a low in terms of referrals leading to release from registry of them, which will be introduced and part of detention, and surely the concern that we would have the improvement of the services is to make sure that is whether case-workers who are not medically trained some of the problems of document tracking is understand that they have to take into consideration corrected through better systems for the future. evidence from medical professionals? Is it that the UK Border Agency is suggesting that they in some way Q112 Steve McCabe: Should people get are better placed to make a judgment on that than compensation when the documents are lost? You have people who are medically qualified? to buy another passport if the UKBA loses yours. Rob Whiteman: The point I am making is that Rob Whiteman: We will gladly consider that. medical practitioners pass on the information that they Chair: Excellent, that you are considering it, not have been told5. It is not the case that all Rule 35 excellent that you have given us a full reply; if you reports say, “In our opinion we think you should could write to us and give us an answer, that would release the person”. Very often what Rule 35 reports be good. do is to pass on the information that has been given to the medical practitioner and then the case-worker Q113 Bridget Phillipson: Mr Whiteman, last time makes the decision. you gave evidence to the Committee you appeared to contradict the Agency, or whoever—the Home Q115 Bridget Phillipson: What happens then? Office’s own guidance on Rule 35—when you Surely the member of staff should be able to have a suggested that legal representatives could make conversation with someone suitably qualified to reach referrals into that. Is that not rather concerning, and a considered decision on that, rather than just reading can we be confident that the rules are well a report on a piece of paper without having the understood? opportunity to discuss its implications further. Rob Whiteman: I am sorry if I was not clear on this Rob Whiteman: The important thing, as I said earlier, last time. The point I was trying to make, and not very is that we think the decision makers in this case have well, and therefore we did have to clarify it, was that to be very well trained, and we do provide training Rule 35 reports are made by medical practitioners. It for them to do that and we have ensured clear is the case that we receive other requests of a Rule 35 guidance for the medical practitioners in order that type outside of the process, and that is the point that they understand the role of the Rule 35 report and that I was trying to make. But for the caseworker they we have case-workers who are trained. We will of have Rule 35 reports from medical practitioners but course watch the figures, and we will see what also, from a range of sources, they receive similar happens. There is a consistent pattern to those figures, information but not covered by Rule 35. If I was not which perhaps you take as alarming, but we can be clear on that, I am sorry, Ms Phillipson, but I looked reassured that something strange is not suddenly back at the evidence I gave last time and the happening, looking at the figures. There is a consistent clarification we gave, and I know what I was trying picture to the figures, and we of course will continue to say and I thought it sort of said it, but if it did not, to watch that after the training has been given and I am sorry; these things are very complex. guidance for medical practitioners has its effect. In terms of the Rule 35 reports, the medical practitioner does not make a recommendation. Very Q116 Mr Winnick: Mr Whiteman, you work on the often what the medical practitioner does is pass on to assumption, I hope, that if you do not know the the case-worker the information that has been answer when being questioned by Members, you 3 Witness note: The specific sampling exercise on these cases 4 This is in relation to their judgement on whether a detainee is relatively small, comprising 100 older asylum files and 50 may have been the victim of torture Active Review cases. This will help inform our plans for 5 And will also reflect whether there is limited or no medical dealing with the remaining cases evidence in support of an allegation of torture Ev 20 Home Affairs Committee: Evidence

26 March 2013 Mark Sedwill, Rob Whiteman and Simon Hayes admit it, and you do not lose any respect because of not get lost between your office and the Home Office that. I refer you to the session in September when I and somewhere else? asked about three individuals who were found by the Rob Whiteman: I am happy, if you write to me, to High Court to have been falsely imprisoned and were make sure that it is dealt with appropriately by the subject to inhumane and degrading treatment in proper person, or you are free to write to Ministers. violation of Article 3, and we had a dialogue. I asked, We will put strong transitional arrangements in place “Have you apologised for that?” You replied, “I do during the period between now and new interim apologise, Mr Winnick”. I responded by saying, “Not directors general being appointed. to me; there is no need to apologise to me”, and you responded to that by saying, “We have, yes, sir”, but Q122 Chair: When you were appointed you came apparently not, because my question to you therefore before the Committee, you were the new broom, and is: are you aware a solicitor said, “Rob Whiteman said you were going to change everything that was going in his letter to the Committee of 8 October 2012 the to happen with the UKBA. It must be disappointing UK Border Agency has not formally apologised to hear the Home Secretary use those words “closed, outside the settlement process, but has agreed secretive and defensive” about an organisation that appropriate damages in line with the Administrative you have led for the last two years. As we said in our Court’s findings that limited periods of detention had last report, that must be an issue about leadership; that been unlawful”? I am just wondering— is where culture comes from. Lin Homer, as we know, Rob Whiteman: I do not know the answer to that, Mr we have noted it in our last report, was promoted to Winnick. I cannot remember those three cases. I will become the Permanent Secretary at the HMIC, gladly look at what I said at the time and see where Jonathan Sedgwick, who we were anticipating hearing we are now with them and write to you. from today has gone off to work for the Ministry of Justice, and you are now staying on to do this Q117 Mr Winnick: I understand that. There was no transitional arrangement. Can you understand the reason why anyone, be it you or whoever basically public’s concern that here is an organisation that the would do your job, or any Member of Parliament, any Minister for Immigration has called troubled, that we Minister, can know the answer to every possible have called, in some cases, shambolic, that the Home question, but what surprises me is that you were so Secretary has called closed, secretive and defensive, willing to say yes an apology had been made when in yet everyone associated with the leadership of this fact it had not been. Would it not have been better, on organisation is guaranteed a job or has been reflection, to have said, “I will look into that”? promoted? Do you understand what the public must Rob Whiteman: Yes, Mr Winnick, it sounds as if that feel? is the case. Sometimes what happens in these cases is Rob Whiteman: I do completely hear what you say. I that if we have made a settlement and finalised the hope that the changes that I have made over the last matter on the settlement, then we would not reopen it. 18 months have put the UKBA and the immigration I will look at these cases, sir. services on the road to better transparency. I have, I hope, treated this Committee with respect. I have written to you on time; I have tried to make Q118 Chair: I am going to close the session now, but information available. When we have discovered I want to ask two final questions. First of all, the mistakes we have said so. I think that where the Home Home Secretary said that the two units were going to Secretary has set out that one of the major tenets of be an immigration and visa service and an what we want through the new organisations is to immigration law enforcement organisation. Do we improve their transparency, all of that applies. Of have names for these services yet? course it is always disappointing if we have not made Rob Whiteman: No, not at the moment. The Home as much progress as we wish we had. Secretary has set out the broad principles of what they will do and that will be looked at in the immediate Q123 Chair: Can I pay tribute to you, as this is the future, Mr Vaz. last appearance you will be making as Chief Executive. Certainly, as you have correctly said, and Q119 Chair: This is your last appearance, so we do can I just repeat what I said earlier, in your dealings not have a name, so we do not write to you any more, with this Committee there has been a step change in obviously, because you are not the Chief Executive; the way in which the UKBA has dealt with the Home is that right? Affairs Select Committee. Your letters have improved Rob Whiteman: We will set up transitional immensely since your predecessor’s letters to us, and arrangements immediately. the last letter, as I have said, was on time. You have always been available whenever we have called you, Q120 Chair: Immediately as of today? and if you want a lasting legacy—and this is why I Rob Whiteman: As of today I remain Chief Executive am surprised that all these discussions were taking of the Agency until 31 March, and I will now lead the place—you did close the Controlled Archive, which transition process and we will make sure that the issue was a real bugbear for this Committee. I do not know of where letters and queries should go to will be what you must feel after what has been said in the dealt with. House about the organisation that you have led; the fact is—thank you for the way in which you have Q121 Chair: So it may be more appropriate to write dealt with this Committee, and we wish you well in to Ministers now in the interim so that the letter does your future career in the Home Office. Home Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 21

26 March 2013 Mark Sedwill, Rob Whiteman and Simon Hayes

Rob Whiteman: I am very grateful for those Chair: We may see you again in another role. comments, Chair; I have greatly enjoyed my Rob Whiteman: Let us see. Thank you very much. appearances here, and I am grateful for, genuinely, the Chair: Mr Hayes, I am sorry that we kept you insight that the Committee has given in terms of waiting, but thank you for what you have done; most improving our immigration services, which I know grateful. you will want to see. Ev 22 Home Affairs Committee: Evidence

Written evidence

Letter from the Chair of the Committee to Rob Whiteman, Chief Executive, UK Border Agency, 7 January 2013 (UKBA Q4 01) As part of the Committee’s ongoing inquiry into the work of the UK Border Agency I attach a data request covering the fourth quarter of 2012. I would be grateful if you could make every effort to respond to the attached questions by 6pm on Thursday 28 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 without consideration for deportation.

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

3. What percentage of FNOs who entered the prison system between 1 October 2012 and the 1 December 2012 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 Q4 2012?

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 Q4 2012?

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 travel document 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 at the end of Q4 2012

13. What is the current status of the 3 ex-FNOs (from the cohort of 28 released without consideration for deportation 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 Returns Schemes 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 Home Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 23

SIZE OF THE “LIVE COHORTS” Net no of cases at Number of cases Number of cases the 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 cohort Immigration live cohort

SIZE OF THE MIGRATION REFUSAL POOL Net no of records Number of records at 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 Refusal Pool

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 without leave to do so?

19. At the end of Q4 2012 how many of the had been granted permanent leave to remain concluded cases in the asylum backlog: had been granted limited leave to remain had been removed from the UK were found to be duplicates were found to be deceased

20. At the end of Q4 2012 how many of the had been granted permanent leave to remain concluded cases in the immigration backlog: had been granted limited leave to remain had been removed from the UK were found to be duplicates were 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 in Q4 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 Q4 2012?

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 2 b) 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? Ev 24 Home Affairs Committee: Evidence

OUT OF COUNTRY VISA APPLICATIONS 32. What percentage of out of country visa applications, in each PBS Tier, were processed within the Agency’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 and permanent 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 applicants family reunion decided in Q4 2012 what was the being notified of the decision on the application Maximum time from receipt of application to the applicants being notified of the decision on the application Minimum time from receipt of application to the applicants being notified of the decision on the application

35. Of the applications for refugee/humanitarian More than 6 months family reunion still pending at the end of Q4 More than 1 year 2012 a) what percentage and b) how many have been outstanding for

IN-COUNTRY VISA APPLICATIONS 36. What percentage of in-county visa applications, in each PBS Tier, were processed within the Agency’s Service Standards in Q4 2012?

37. What were the number of cases in “Work in Progress” on the 31 December 2012 for both temporary and permanent 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 1 December 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 for December 2012 how many have now: permission to pay the civil penalty in monthly instalments? submitted an objection to the civil penalty compliance team against the service of the civil penalty? lodged an appeal against the service of the civil penalty to the appropriate court?

40. How many carriers were issued with a Notification of Demand for Payment Form IS80D between 1 October 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 Liaison 2012 and 1 December 2012 have now: Section at the UKBA? lodged an appeal against the charge at the appropriate court?

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

43. Please provide a breakdown of how many Tier 2, had their licenses suspended in Q4 2012 4 and 5 sponsors had their licenses revoked in Q4 2012

APPEAL TRIBUNALS 44. In Q3 2012, for each category of First Tier allowed Tribunal cases please provide a breakdown of the dismissed number of appeals that were withdrawn

45. In Q3 2012 how many deportation appeals were allowed dismissed withdrawn Home Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 25

46. A what percentage of a) First Tier Tribunal, b) Upper Tier Tribunal, c) Deportation and d) all appeal hearings 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 remain subsequent 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 over Q4 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 immigration detention 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 were subsequently 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 in immigration detention in Q4 2012?

56. Please provide a breakdown of the number of reports made by a medical practitioner under Rule 35 in Q4 2012 by institution?

57. How many reports made by a medical practitioner to the UKBA under Rule 35 in Q4 2012 resulted in the 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 Q4 2012?

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

ASYLUM 60. How many persons seeking asylum were recognised as refugees or given humanitarian protection by the UK 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 2012 UKBA and b) Sodexho Limited in: Q2 2012 Q3 2012 Q4 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? Ev 26 Home Affairs Committee: Evidence

LOST DOCUMENTS 67. Please provide a breakdown by type of document of the number of applicant documents that the UKBA lost 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, 28 February 2013 Thank you for your letter of 7 January requesting information ahead of my appearance before the Committee next month. Answers to the Committee’s questions can be found below. Please note that the majority of figures quoted are 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 Whiteman Chief 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 without consideration for deportation, as at the end of quarter four 2012: Of which Going through Serving Cases removed/ Of which deportation custodial Not concluded deported not removed process sentence located Total At end Q4 865 409 456 89 12 47 1,013 2012

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 what proportion of FNOs were referred by the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) to the UK Border Agency within specific times. The Home Office and Ministry of Justice are working on approaches to make this simpler. In the meantime we continue to sample cases and a further sample has taken place for cases up to 21 September 2012 which showed that 33% of cases were referred to the Agency by NOMS within five days of sentencing, although almost 80% of referrals are received within 30 days, and there is a separate process for referring cases where release is imminent. We have introduced a back up system to check newly sentenced 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, three remained untraced. We are continuing to attempt to trace these individuals and their details have been circulated on the Police National Computer stating that the UK Border Agency should be contacted if they are encountered. All three cases have been referred to Operation Nexus1 for ongoing enhanced database subscription 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 offences in 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 immigration detention and released without consideration for deportation in quarter four 2012: Q4 2012 Released from prison 734 Transferred in to immigration detention 1,010 Released 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 from prison without consideration for deportation in quarters one and two of 2012. The individual released in quarter one was convicted of an offence in the “more” category2, the two other individuals, including the one released in 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 training order in a Secure Training Centre. These fall under the Youth Justice Board (YJB), rather than NOMS, and the referral agreement with the YJB was not in place at the time of release. Home Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 27

7. The table below shows the status of the FNOs eligible for deportation released from prison in quarter four 2012: Q4 2012 Deported * Concluded3 17 Outstanding 343 Total 362

*Less than five

8. The table below shows a breakdown of the status of the outstanding cases: Q4 2012 Being caseworked4 143 Legal issues5 142 Removal issues6 50 Other7 8 Total 343

9. Note these figures refer to FNO cases outstanding at the end of the same quarter in which they were released. Some will have been released late in that quarter and so while they remain outstanding they may have 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 be removed at the end of quarter four 2012, broken down by primary barrier to removal: Primary barrier Total Challenge to deportation8 195 Asylum claim or refugee status 25 Children issues9 5 Country situation prohibits removal 12 Emergency Travel Document (ETD) required—individual compliant but ETD awaited 52 ETD required—country non-compliant 30 ETD required—individual non-compliant 123 Further criminal proceedings 7 Further representations or Judicial Review 39 Medical reasons10 5 Nationality not confirmed 11 Awaiting removal 111 Total 505

11. The table below shows the number of detained FNOs who had been waiting 12 months or more for a travel document to enforce their removal, and the number of FNOs subject to deportation action living in the community, at the end of quarter four 2012: End of Q4 2012 FNOs waiting 12 months or more for a travel document to enforce removal 106 FNOs 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 an FNO, 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. Ev 28 Home Affairs Committee: Evidence

Q4 2012 Number of failed removal attempts 208 Percentage 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 failed removals, 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 the community at the end of quarter four 2012: Q4 2012 Less than six months 374 Less than 12 months 392 Less than 24 months 625 More than 24 months 1,572 More than 60 months 1,092 Data quality issues14 47 Total 4,102

15. The table below shows the percentage of FNO removals that were made during their Early Release Scheme (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. The table below shows the number of cases in the asylum and migration live cohorts at the end of the month specified (figures are to the nearest 500): 19 November 2012 (controlled archive September 2012 closure report) December 2012 Live asylum cohort 28,500 34,000 33,500 Migration 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 asylum legacy cases as at the end of quarter four 2012 (rounded to the nearest 100): Conclusion total at end of Q4 2012 Grant (permanent) 3,400 Grant (temporary) 5,500 Removal 4,400 Duplicate 2,700 Deceased 100 Total 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. The remainder 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 included in both categories. Home Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 29

18. The table below shows a breakdown of the outcomes of the total (since April 2011) concluded migration legacy cases as at the end of quarter four 2012 (rounded to the nearest 100): Conclusions total at the end of Q4 2012 Grant (permanent) 600 Grant (temporary) 500 Removal 800 Duplicate 500 Deceased * 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 Case Audit 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) over quarter four 2012: Net number of records Number of records Number of records at 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 suitable for contact. The contact management aspect of this work commenced on 12 December and therefore there are no figures available for the outcomes of this work before 31 December. Capita provides operational management information regularly, which we assure against our own management information. We will provide you with quarterly updates (starting in my next quarterly letter) broken down into the following key performance 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 25,400 Tier 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 1,748 Tier 417 59 Tier 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. Ev 30 Home Affairs Committee: Evidence

24. The table below shows the number of new sponsor applicants in each Tier that received a pre-registration visit in quarter four 2012: Pre-registration visits Tier 2 194 Tier 4 15 Tier 5 4 Tiers 2 and 518 6

25. The table below shows the number of follow up visits made to sponsors in each Tier in quarter four 2012, and the number of these that were unannounced: Follow up visits Unannounced follow up visits Tier 2 1,366 462 Tier 4 281 150 Tier 5 80 9 Tiers 2 and 4 35 4 Tiers 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 quarter four 201219: Q4 2012 Average 17 calendar days Maximum 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 awaiting the outcome of investigations by other government departments and agencies. Where an institution that applies for a sponsor licence is under investigation by, for example, the police, we will co-operate fully. Additionally our 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 service standards 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 2012 broken down by case type: Category Work in progress EEA Family Permits 436 Family Visit 4,740 Other Non-Settlement 747 Other Visitor 22,938 PBS Tier 1 553 PBS Tier 2 1,550 PBS Tier 4 5,401 18 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. Home Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 31

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

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

33. The table below shows the average, maximum and minimum length of time between receipt of an application for refugee/humanitarian family reunion and the applicant being notified of the decision in quarter four 2012: Q4 2012 Average 46 days Maximum 321 days21 Minimum 1 day

34. The table below shows the number and percentage of applications for refugee/humanitarian family reunion 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 34 357 Percentage 3% 26%

35. The table below shows the proportion of in-country visa applications that were processed within the Agency’s service standards in quarter four 2012: Postal applications Premium applications in 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 of quarter four 2012 for both temporary and permanent migration broken down by case type: Category Work in progress Family 28,760 Tier 1 (including post study work) 11,145 Tier 2/5 2,903 Tier 4 33,083 Bulgarian and Romanian Caseworking 4,019 European Community Association Agreement 1,913 Sponsor (pre-licence) 749 Sponsor (post-licence) 2,913 Sponsor (highly trusted sponsorship) 0 Sponsor (renewals) 32 Temporary—total 85,517 Permanent residence 30,134 European casework 31,180 British citizenship 17,662 Permanent—total 78,976

37. In addition, on 31 December 2012 there were 48,857 temporary migration and 12,246 permanent migration 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. Ev 32 Home Affairs Committee: Evidence

Enforcement (38–43) 38. The table below shows the number of civil penalties that were issued to employers, the number that have now paid the civil penalty in full, the number that have asked the civil penalty compliance team for permission to pay the civil penalty in monthly instalments, the number that have submitted an objection to the civil penalty compliance team against the service of the civil penalty, and the number that have lodged an appeal against the service of the civil penalty to the appropriate court between 1 October and 1 December 2012: Requested to pay 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 for Payment Form IS80D, the number that have now paid the charge in full, the number that have objected to the Inspector at the Carriers Liaison Section and the number that have lodged an appeal against the charge between 1 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 received in quarter four 2012: Notifications in a potential non-compliance category23 Tier 2 5,964 Tier 4 28,962 Tier 5 646

41. The table below shows the number of sponsors that had their licences suspended or revoked in quarter four 2012: Q4 2012 Suspended Revoked Tier 2 209 170 Tier 4 80 62 Tier 5 16 7

Appeal Tribunals (44–48)24 42. The table below shows the number of First-tier Tribunal disposals (determined, withdrawn and struck out) in quarter three 2012: First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Disposals Determined25 Withdrawn Struck out26 Asylum 2,800 2,500 270 0 Managed Migration 7,200 6,000 810 400 Entry Clearance 4,600 3,400 1,100 38 Family Visit Visa 5,800 3,600 2,100 130 Deportation 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 appeal process. Home Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 33

43. The table below breaks down the number of First-tier Tribunal determined appeals by those allowed and dismissed in quarter three 2012: First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Determined Allowed Dismissed Asylum 2,500 770 1,800 Managed Migration 6,000 3,100 2,900 Entry Clearance 3,400 1,800 1,700 Family Visit Visa 3,600 1,600 2,000 Deportation 220 49 170

44. The table below shows the number of First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal27 disposals of deportation appeals (determined, withdrawn and struck out) in quarter three 2012: Deportation appeals Disposals Determined Withdrawn Struck out28 First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and 230 220 14 0 Asylum Chamber) Upper Tribunal (Immigration and 26 26 0 0 Asylum Chamber)

45. The table below breaks down the number of determined Deportation appeals in the First-tier Tribunal and 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/A Asylum 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 in quarter 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 2012 following an appeal being withdrawn: Human Permanent Temporary Asylum Deport Rights migration migration Total First-tier 29 10 5 26 123 193 Upper 2 0 0 6 8 16 Tribunal Total 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 has improved 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 at Deportation 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 fall under 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 comparisons against previous data will need to take this change into consideration. 28 As per note 26. Ev 34 Home Affairs Committee: Evidence

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 and June 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 Agency won 54% of all appeals at the First-tier Tribunal and 70% of asylum appeals. The win rate in 2011/12 was 55% (71% for asylum appeals).

Reducing Appeal Volumes 53. Appeal volumes continue to reduce. MoJ published statistics show that in 2010/11 there were 136,800 appeals compared to 112,500 in 2011/12. Between July and September there were 23,800 appeals, compared to 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 within service standard and the percentage of MPs’ emails that were answered within service standard in quarter four 2012: Q4 2012 Further 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 detention found to have suffered a breach of Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights due to multiple grounds 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 granted leave 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 mean that the decision to detain was incorrect. In many cases new information is provided at a later stage that alters the individual’s status, whilst in others an individual may enter detention for their own safety while a final decision is made on their case. 59. The cost of detaining an individual in immigration detention is £102 per day. This value is based on the total 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 individuals in immigration detention, and the number of these that resulted in the individual being released, in quarter four 2012: Q4 2012 Rule 35 reports 354 Rule 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 2012 by institution: Q4 2012 Brook House IRC 33 Campsfield House IRC 11 Cedars PDA 0 Colnbrook IRC 42 Dover IRC 37 Dungavel IRC 9 Harmondsworth IRC 53 Haslar IRC 12 Larne House 0 Morton Hall IRC 27 Pennine House 0 Home Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 35

Q4 2012 Tinsley House 31 Yarlswood IRC 96 HMP 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 a combination of AMS and manual returns. AMS data provides a breakdown of the type of immigration and smuggling crimes which the public report; the chart below shows this for Q4 2012. This data is the public’s perception of the crime that they are reporting and does not necessarily reflect any actual offence committed. Sum of Total Intake

0.99%

3.70% 8.84% Bogus Marriage 1.54% 6.14% Fake or false document 0.27% Helping people to enter or stay in the UK illegally Human Trafficking 36.82% Illegal Working

Lied in Application

No Permission to stay in t he UK

40.31% Other

Smuggling (Alcohol, Cash, Cigarette & Tobacco, Drugs, Other etc.) 1.39%

64. Full AMS management information (MI) reporting is being launched in early February and this will allow us to provide data on outcome by allegation type. At present the combination of AMS MI and the manual data previously provided is not considered sufficiently robust to provide to the Committee but once full AMS MI 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 UK in 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 they make arrangements to leave the UK. Ev 36 Home Affairs Committee: Evidence

68. The table below shows the number of support enquiries received by the UK Border Agency and Sodexo in 2012: UK Border Agency Sodexo Q1 2012 829 263 Q2 2012 823 278 Q3 2012 828 333 Q4 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, by group, at the end of quarter four 2012: Q4 2012 International Operations and Visas 1,836 Resources and Organisational Development 1,237 Strategy and Assurance Group 532 Crime and Enforcement Group 3,975 Immigration and Settlement Group 4,472 Director of Operations 1,250 Total 13,300

70. The Agency spent approximately £572,500 on external consultants in quarter four 2012, primarily in support of improving the Agency’s operational effectiveness, including by benchmarking processes against other organisations. The work provided insight to the characteristics and relative maturity of UKBA peer organisations (including those abroad). The findings of this research informed areas for the Agency to prioritise in the next two years to increase organisational performance. Overall the Agency’s spend on external consultants 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 Whiteman Chief Executive, UK Border Agency 28 February 2013

Printed in the United Kingdom by The Stationery Office Limited 07/2013 030026 19585