Examination of Witnesses (Questions 140-159)
FOREIGN AND
COMMONWEALTH OFFICE,
UKVISAS, AND
THE HOME
OFFICE
21 JUNE 2004
Q140 Mr Williams: You, Sir Michael, referred
to the fact that staff are under intense pressure.
Sir Michael Jay: But I was talking
about the UKvisas staff overseas, Mr Williams.
Q141 Mr Williams: Switching for a second,
I do not quite understand the logic: there was a report in April
of this year in the Sunday Times that IND is to reduce
its staff by 25% over the next three years. This is supposed to
be in a memo from the Permanent Secretary. How does one reconcile
a 25% cut in IND at a time when everything is escalating and spinning
out of control?
Mr Jeffrey: It is not IND as a
whole. In common with other parts of government, we are looking
critically at our headquarters staffing. IND is now a large enough
organisation to have a significant headquarters function, and
we think we can reduce the numbers there by about 25% over three
years, but we would be doing so in part to release staff for our
own front-line, because most of our staff are engaged on administering
immigration, and there is no question of cuts there.
Q142 Mr Williams: You referred to the
inadequacy of information flows, and it has been manifestly demonstrated
here today. I know you are not necessarily responsible for what
happened, but you are in the job today. Why did no-one consider
addressing the incompatibility of the IT systems? You talked,
Mr Barnett, about monitoring; yet here you had two departments
trying to monitor with incompatible IT systems. Did no-one think
that that might lead to some chaos? This is probably more a question
for the Permanent Secretary in fact. I know that, again, you may
not have been there at the time this came about, but why was it
not addressed?
Sir Michael Jay: There are incompatibilities
in IT systems around Whitehall, which we are all collectively
trying to address. Mr Barnett can say a bit more about it and
precisely how we have been trying to address the incompatibility
between the Home Office and our posts.
Mr Barnett: Absolutely. The main
thing we have done is to develop a central reference system. This
effectively gives us central access to the entire global visa
database. That is now not only accessible to us in UKvisas; it
is accessible to posts so that they can check applications if
they have received an application from someone who has previously
applied in a third country. We are now rolling it around the UK
to ports of entry, to caseworkers in Sheffield and elsewhere.
We are working very hard to join up our IT. Another important
development is that IND is developing a new intelligence IT system.
It is planned that a version of that will be made available in
due course to UKvisas staff overseas. That, again, will help us
better to join up in the future.
Q143 Mr Williams: Thank you very much
for that. Can I just give you a pacifying observation, as an MP
dealing with constituency cases? UKvisas and IND hotline are both
now doing a marvellous job compared with what we had before, in
dealing with members' cases; and I would like that passed on to
the people involved.
Sir Michael Jay: I will do that.
Chairman: You have waited an hour and
a half for a pat on the back, but it came at last! We have a few
supplementary questions for you from Mr Jenkins, Mr Bacon and
Mrs Browning.
Q144 Mr Jenkins: Sir Michael, do you
automatically check on applicants to see if they have a criminal
record?
Sir Michael Jay: Yes, we do, Mr
Jenkins.
Q145 Mr Jenkins: An automatic check?
Sir Michael Jay: As I understand
it, here there would be an automatic—
Q146 Mr Jenkins: If they come here and
make an application in this country, can we check back to see
if they have a criminal record as well?
Sir Michael Jay: If the application
is made overseas, then there will be an automatic check to ensure
that they do not have a criminal record.
Mr Jeffrey: The main check is
against our warnings index, which is a computerised database of
people who are to be refused for all sorts of reasons, including
criminality.
Q147 Mr Bacon: Mr Williams just said
to me, "how anyone could ignore Sir John Ramsden's letter
is fairly unbelievable"—but what I am not quite clear
about, Mr Barnett, is, who are the senior managers in this organisation
to whom this information was not passed on? Presumably, in the
Foreign Office it is Sir Michael; but you are a senior manager
yourself, are you not?
Mr Barnett: Yes, I am.
Q148 Mr Bacon: You did not think that
a letter from Sir John Ramsden, saying, "this has developed
into an organised scam that completely undermines our entry control
procedures" was of fundamental importance and should be flagged
up at the highest level? You did not think that?
Mr Barnett: I did not think that,
but to be very clear Sir John Ramsden was the lead official on
this since he had written the original letter.
Q149 Mr Bacon: Yes.
Mr Barnett: We had remained closely
in touch and we did not—
Q150 Mr Bacon: I just wanted to be clear
you did not think it was important enough to flag up. Mr Jeffrey,
do you deny that quality controls on applications for leave to
remain were basically scrapped, and that the driving factors became
targets and statistics?
Mr Jeffrey: I do deny that. I
think that, as I said earlier, there was a period—and it
is not something we are now relying on because we are much more
up to date with the business than we were—when all the cases
were being dealt with under the so-called BRACE arrangements,
which involved a judgment—essentially an instruction to
decide the case on the papers that are in front of them, and not
to make inquiry—
Q151 Mr Bacon: So in other words, to
quote further from this document I have in front of me: "People
who contracted bogus marriages, students at bogus colleges, and
others whose applications would have been refused, had even basic
further inquiries been made, were all granted leave to remain
on the basis that they ticked the right boxes on the application
form and supplied the minimum of supporting documents. This policy
was applied even to those who had breached the immigration rules
by overstaying their previous leave." That was an accurate
description of how things were being applied or misapplied, is
it not?
Mr Jeffrey: I do not know from
what document you are quoting, but what I would say—
Q152 Mr Bacon: Is that a broadly accurate
description?
Mr Jeffrey: I do not think it
is an accurate description. I think it underestimates the extent
to which the system was working, and it did lead to a proportion
of refusals. What I would say is that in terms of the general
casework we are now on top of the business. I looked back at your
Committee's report on the IND computer system several years ago,
when they then certainly could not say when we would get the backlogs
under control, and your Committee was critical about that; but
now the backlogs are under control, and we are turning our attention
very directively towards tackling abuse of marriage provisions,
abuse of students.
Q153 Mr Bacon: If you wave everyone through
at high speed, it is not surprising the backlogs are now under
control, is it? Sir Michael, in answer to the Chairman's question,
"is what Mr Cameron said largely correct?" you gave
a long answer but did not actually say whether what Mr Cameron
said was largely correct or not. Was what Mr Cameron said largely
correct—yes or no?
Sir Michael Jay: What he was drawing
attention to—
Q154 Mr Bacon: Was his description of
the situation largely correct? Yes or no will do. Was it largely
correct?
Sir Michael Jay: He was drawing
attention to circumstances, and those circumstances were largely
correct.
Q155 Mr Bacon: So Mr Cameron's description
was largely correct?
Sir Michael Jay: His description
of what had been happening, as I understand it, was largely correct.
Q156 Mr Bacon: Has he been given a large
pay rise and been promoted?
Sir Michael Jay: No, he has not.
Q157 Mr Bacon: What has happened to him?
Sir Michael Jay: He is at the
moment facing two disciplinary procedures, and those are being
carried out in accordance with our normal departmental procedures.
Both of those cases are current at the moment, and it would therefore
be wrong of me to go into any further details.
Q158 Mr Bacon: Mr Jeffrey, has Mr Moxon
been given a large pay rise and been promoted?
Mr Jeffrey: No, he has not.
Q159 Mr Bacon: What has happened to him?
Mr Jeffrey: He too is the subject
of a disciplinary investigation, but it has not yet come to a
conclusion.
| 
