Oral Evidence

3275021001 Page Type [SO] 18-07-06 15:13:50 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1 Home Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 1 Oral evidence Taken before the Home Affairs Committee on Tuesday 13 December 2005 Members present: Mr John Denham, in the Chair Mr Richard Benyon Steve McCabe Mr Jeremy Browne Mr Shahid Malik Mr James Clappison Gwyn Prosser Mrs Ann Cryer Mr David Winnick Mrs Janet Dean Witnesses: Ms Mary Coussey, Independent Race Monitor, Ms Fiona Lindsley, Independent Monitor for Entry Clearance Refusals, and Dr Ann Barker, Chair, IND Complaints Audit Committee, gave evidence. Q1 Chairman: Thank you very much for coming to the rest of them where there is no named oYcial. give evidence to us this morning. As you will know, Those probably run to about 26,000 a year, on top this is the first hearing of the Committee in our new of which are 40,000 MPs’ letters, which many of you inquiry into immigration control and the way in will be involved in responding to or receiving which it operates, and we are very grateful to you for responses about. It is a very arbitrary and setting things going. I wonder if we could ask you to unsatisfactory classification. My Committee has introduce yourselves and then we will start the drawn up a matrix to enable IND to classify questioning. according to quality of service complaints and Dr Barker: My name is Ann Barker and I am Chair misconduct complaints and have proposed two of the Complaints Audit Committee. diVerent systems for dealing with them, which I am Ms Coussey: I am Mary Coussey and I am the pleased to go into. Independent Race Monitor for the Immigration Service. Q4 Chairman: That is very helpful, thank you. In Ms Lindsley: Fiona Lindsley, Independent Monitor your first report, you said that the replies to two out into Entry Clearance Refusals without the right of of three complainants gave “indefensible” reasons. appeal. I have actually just finished my That is a very, very strong statement. appointment. Dr Barker: It is a potent statement, I agree. V Q2 Chairman: If I can start things o , Dr Barker, Q5 Chairman: Can you give us some examples of the you are the new Chair of the Complaints Audit sorts of things you saw which led you to use that Committee. In summary, what are the biggest language? problems that you have identified in taking your first Dr Barker: Yes, the main problem is that the look at complaint-handling in IND? investigations themselves upon which the decisions Dr Barker: There are three major problems: one, are made are not conducted equitably. that the system is so fragmented that it is not Y Complainants are not interviewed. The working at all e ciently and that customer complainant’s statement may be three lines and that satisfaction is not what it should be; two, that the is it and there is no attempt to discover more. There quality of investigations is low; and, three, that is no attempt to test the evidence given by the person operational complaints are not being addressed at by whom the complaint has been made to the oYcial all adequately and no one knows quite how many about whom the complaint has been made and the there are. There is no systematic procedure whereby consequence is that the complainant’s side, as it they are considered and the system is not working were, is not properly investigated. There are properly; indeed, there is not much of a system. paucities of independent witness statements because of delays, and evidence like CCTV or medical Q3 Chairman: Just so that the Committee is clear, reports is often missing. There is very little on the could you set out what an operational complaint is? complainant’s side. On the other hand, there is quite Dr Barker: There has to date been a division of detailed investigation on the side of the oYcial in complaints between formal complaints and just regard to independent witnesses and any other simply those which have a named oYcial with no corroborating evidence so that the person who is diVerentiation as to the cause of the complaint, the writing the reply to the complainant, the reply- complexity of the complaint or indeed the writer, and it is a diVerent person from the person importance of the complaint. It is simply a named who conducted the investigation, is at a huge oYcial and, of those 500 to 600 cases a year in which disadvantage. The reply-writer cannot weigh the oYcials are named, a full investigation is conducted evidence properly on the balance of probabilities to the tune of £3,000. Operational complaints are all because he does not have enough evidence to do it 3275021001 Page Type [E] 18-07-06 15:13:50 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1 Ev 2 Home Affairs Committee: Evidence 13 December 2005 Ms Mary Coussey, Ms Fiona Lindsley and Dr Ann Barker with, so that is the first problem, that it is Dr Barker: Yes, but, as a footnote, I am heartened inequitable, and, if it is inequitable like that, it is that Lin Homer and the senior executive group have indefensible. The reasons also have to be clear. They, taken on board our first report, and the Director of at one level, have to be JR-proof and they have to the Immigration Service, for instance, as well as Lin conform to legal requirements and they are not are engaging with us not just to identify where the always clear. The basic problem is the inequality of problems are, but to begin to look at how they might the investigation which is then built into the reply be sorted out, so there is a will to do something and and that they do not withstand inspection. that is heartening, but it is early days yet to see what the engagement will amount to. Q6 Chairman: My final opening question may be outside your remit, but to what extent do you think Q10 Gwyn Prosser: There has also been a dramatic the problems that you see in the system stem from change in the make-up of the membership of your poor-quality initial decision-making in the Committee. Have you got any comments or views on individual cases? the way the Committee members were appointed? Dr Barker: That is actually outside my remit. Dr Barker: I do not think there has been a huge change. There was a police oYcer on the last Q7 Chairman: I thought it might be, but it is an area Committee and my Committee has Paul Acres who of interest. is the former Chief Constable of Hertfordshire. We Dr Barker: The one area where it does hit is that if have then an independent who is a businessman there has not been a decision, and in many cases rather than a barrister, as was the last one, and decisions have not been made in regard to removals, somebody who has sat on a wide variety of public for instance, complaints can be generated from the bodies. Then we have me with a fairly messy CV, lack of decision-making, not so much from poor whereas Ros Gardner’s was far more decision-making. straightforward, as being someone who has an expertise in customer case, so I do not think that the composition of the Committee is that diVerent and, Q8 Gwyn Prosser: Dr Barker, as recently as June insofar as the Nolan principles seem to have been your predecessor seemed to be putting quite a demonstrated in the selection process, I regard them positive gloss on the whole issue of complaints. For as satisfactory. instance, he talked about it being “heartening” that issues, such as, poor administration, lost documentation and the need for training had all Q11 Gwyn Prosser: You have told us this morning a been addressed and that complaints relating to those little about the operational complaints as opposed to areas were now very few and far between. Now, that individual complaints and I think that was an indication which you brought to the system. appraisal is, I think, in stark contrast to some of the things you have been saying and the things we have Dr Barker: That is right. been hearing this morning. Why is that, do you think? Q12 Gwyn Prosser: Why did you feel that necessary? Dr Barker: It is because we looked at our remit Dr Barker: Because it is the volume industry. If you diVerently. The previous Committee and indeed are talking about 500 complaints with named previous committees have accepted the limitation oYcials, at first there was a lack of clarity as to how that they would audit only formal complaints which many operational complaints there were, and there amount to about 500 a year and the way they probably still is. Twenty-six thousand is a very rough undertook that exercise was to look at each file, to estimate, but these are complaints which identify problems in the handling of the complaint demonstrate a series of problems, most of which and either comment about that particular file, with relate to, for instance, delays. We undertook a it then going back to the person who was responsible limited scoping exercise as part of this audit and we for handling it with instructions about how the case looked at 3,000 of them, and 90% were due to delays, could have been handled better, or simply saying, but that is a general categorisation beneath which “File noted”.

Load more