APPENDIX 31
Memorandum submitted by the Public and
Commercial Services Union (PCS)
1. The Public and Commercial Services Union
(PCS) is by far the largest civil service trade union with a total
membership of 274,000 working in the civil service and related
areas. PCS represents the majority of staff in the Immigration
& Nationality Department of the Home Office. This memorandum
has been specifically prepared for this inquiry.
2. Our members working in the Immigration
and Nationality Department have been under a great deal of pressure
in recent years. A system of administrative processes directed
towards fulfilling Aim 6 of the Home Office "A firm, but
fair immigration control" have been supplanted by the practice
of setting SMARTER objectives for staff. The union contends that
the numerical focus of these objectives, for a public service
making quasi-judicial decisions, compromises the intention of
Aim 6.
3. The intense media interest in immigration
issues makes staff in the Immigration and Nationality Department
very aware of the public scrutiny of their actions. The setting
of unrealistic targets only increases the perception amongst staff,
in an already embattled public service, of a failure to deliver
on the public priorities.
4. Furthermore, targets for removals, which
are constantly revised during the course of the "business"
year, can only invalidate the business plans that they seek to
underpin. Our members view removal targets as somewhat arbitrary
and the numerical objectives that they produce as lacking in credibility.
5. The following points form the basis of
the Union's current discontent with the system for removing failed
asylum seekers and suggest how improvements can be made. These
comments are made on the basis of improving the working conditions
of members of the union and have no political bias. The PCS has
many concerns with the politicisation of the Immigration and Nationality
Department and would like to stress its commitment to upholding
the neutrality of administrative civil servants working in this
sensitive area.
6. The IND and the Home Office have failed
to impress on Ministers the reality of attempting to remove 30,000
failed asylum seekers. The target was set without resources being
in place and with little concept of the amount of operational
activity that such a target would require. Our members are suffering
for this lack of preparation and are seeing working practices
change overnight.
7. The increase in operational activity,
which itself has only been possible because of the huge increase
in productivity by IND caseworkers, has been poorly managed. The
increase in the production of decisions has only heightened the
scrutiny of removals, with little focus on the reality of trying
to remove people who do not wish to leave the UK. SMARTER objectives
appear to be viewed by ministers and senior managers in fairly
abstract terms. For our members each statistic is a real human
being, requiring respectful treatment and the full protection
of the law. Given the difficulty in quantifying legal processes,
bald statistics worked out according to an arcane treasury formula,
make an unsound basis for the operation of a humane and fair Immigration
control.
8. The fixation of the Department with quality
over quantity can have serious consequences for a system that
is subject to a high degree of judicial scrutiny. Such scrutiny
calls into question the setting of objectives, linked to pay,
which specify the number of asylum applicants who must be removed
from the UK. Furthermore, the system of "rewards" for
reaching numerical milestones, rather than the alleviation of
poverty pay in the IND, suggests that the Department is more concerned
with arbitrary targets than fairness in the workplace. Special
bonuses, disproportionately awarded to senior managers, are symptomatic
of a Department that now subscribes to the logic of business rather
than public service.
9. The media focus on failed asylum seekers
and the resultant "government imperatives" has led to
the removal of families being prioritised whilst offenders, sometimes
violent criminals, remaining untouched. This ordering of priorities
is largely a "business" decision, in that families deliver
huge cost savings in asylum support, compared to the negligible
savings from removing single males. Immigration Service staff
are under pressure not to investigate non-asylum offenders, whilst
departments within IND, dealing with general casework are understaffed
and their efforts given scant recognition by senior managers.
10. The pressure to deliver "volume"
removals has led to the posting of Immigration Officers directly
into enforcement offices, even though senior managers recognise
the need for officers to serve a considerable time at a major
port in order to hone investigative skills. The posting of inexperienced
staff to enforcement offices has taken place at a time when airports
and seaports are seriously short of officers to operate the immigration
arrivals control.
11. The disproportionate focus on asylum
removals has serious repercussions for the health and safety and
core terms and conditions of employees. The enforcement arm of
the department operates largely in a policy vacuum. No national
policy is in existence for the newly-formed arrest teams. There
has been an increase in family removal activity yet no national
guidelines have yet been produced. The pressure for instant results
appears to subvert the normal rules of policy making and implementation.
Home Office consultation is only honoured in the breach, as managers
frequently attempt to alter conditions of service unilaterally.
The reality is that much of the work of the Immigration Service
can only be carried out on a limited voluntary basis because of
the refusal of management to negotiate with the PCS.
12. PCS believes that the development of
the Immigration and Nationality Department should take place with
consideration for the staff delivering the service. The union
is committed to supporting its members in delivering a fair and
equitable service but this cannot be achieved in the absence of
meaningful negotiations, particularly in respect of the changing
role of the Immigration Service.
October 2002
| 
