Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20
- 39)
TUESDAY 13 DECEMBER 2005
MS MARY
COUSSEY, MS
FIONA LINDSLEY
AND DR
ANN BARKER
Q20 Mr Clappison: Yes, of the ones
which are investigated, these allegations of assault.
Dr Barker: I do not know.
Q21 Mr Clappison: That is understandable.
Have you given any thought to the resource implications of this
proposal and what they would be, your proposal for a group of
investigators to investigate the more serious cases you have just
told us about?
Dr Barker: Yes, a formal investigation
or a proper investigation now takes £3,000, so you have got
500 to 600 of those a year. It is completely unknown how much
is being spent on service-level operational complaints. What is
clear is that there is a huge repetition of attention to these.
They end up with huge files because they go in, normally a delay
is complained about, they go to the back of the queue if it is
regarded as an enquiry rather than a complaint, and an enormous
amount of paperwork builds up as it goes among officials and nobody
is keeping track of what is going on. There is a large and incalculable
amount of money which is being wasted now because the complaints
are not simply going into the centre, back out to the area from
which they came, having a higher executive officer responsible
for saying to the executive officers or the administrative officers,
"Deal with this. Either send out a pro forma letter and say
that it takes six months to do this kind of work", and it
is only three and it will be solved, "or send out macros
or in fact just deal with it".
Q22 Mr Clappison: What do you understand
to be the attitude of IND senior management in all of this towards
the resource side of things?
Dr Barker: It would be wrong for
anyone to say that anyone in Whitehall is unconcerned about resources.
I think they recognise that resources are being used and what
we are proposing—and they themselves are proposing as this
is not just our recommendation because before we came on board,
they recognised that there had to be a streamlining, there had
to be a unifying element, there had to be one database from which
all of the complaints-handling was both determined, tracked and
then ultimately decided, so they have taken that on board—what
we are proposing is not expensive. You have got officers in ports,
for instance, who are doing investigations and they are now being
obliged to turn away from their front-line duties, their main
duties to undertake investigations. If you had had a small group
of people, four to six, doing it, it is much cheaper than paying
percentages of people hither and yon, and you also get a much
better quality of product.
Q23 Mr Clappison: You have said a
little bit about this already on a slightly different subject.
Could you tell us what you think could be done to ensure the information
from complaints is fed back into the system to improve the performance
you aspire to?
Dr Barker: If you have one data
system, if you have the matrix, if you have service standards
which have to be developed in order for the matrix to work and
a code of conduct, and we have drafted one, so that misconduct
can be identified, and if you get the information promptly so
it is real-time management information, then you can identify
where there are hot-spots, where there are delays and where things
are going wrong before they build up. Rather like the visa problem
several years ago, you could have seen that one coming down the
pike and you could have done something about it early.
Q24 Mr Benyon: Dr Barker, you may
have answered part of this question just now, but at the end of
your submission, you strike a more positive note, stating that
you had found examples of good practice which you saluted in your
current audit and you are encouraged by the attitude of certain
officials. Can you give us some examples of that, and I guess
what you have just described is good practice in many respects,
but what is actually happening?
Dr Barker: At the public inquiry
office, there is a person, an official, who is now responsible
for complaints who looks at the complaints quarterly, analyses
the causes as well as how they have been handled, indicates through
their newsletter, which has a page in it, what the problems are
and how they themselves can address these problems, so there is
a virtuous circle in that area of using complaints to best effect.
Now, there may be more throughout, as it were, the empire, but
we have not undertaken the number of visits we might have done
because we have been looking at files in such detail.
Q25 Mr Benyon: So there is a co-ordination
role in the complaints procedure that you are approving of in
that context?
Dr Barker: Well, I am saying that
that is a model in and of itself. You know what the complaints
are, you keep track of them, you make sure that the complaint
is handled to time targets, you look at it, you identify what
those complaints are telling you about your own systems and procedures
which are not operating effectively and you then identify how
they can be improved and you build that back into the system.
That is the proper use of complaints and that is good. As I say,
there may be others, but the problem with the system, and I use
the word loosely because in one sense there is not a system, is
that it is so fragmented that good practice like that simply is
not shared across the directorates and it remains isolated.
Q26 Mr Benyon: How transparently
do you believe the Government handles your Committee's recommendations
and are you satisfied with the responses you receive?
Dr Barker: The answer to that
is I am hopeful. We have attacked our business, as it were, in
a much different way from our predecessors. Our predecessors gave
recommendations yearly in the report to the Home Secretary and
my predecessor finally said, "Look, they aren't being taken
on board. Could we please look at the whole system as well as
the role of the CAC to identify how the complaints system can
be improved, but also how recommendations can then be moved into
the business and taken account of?" Something called the
Simms Review was an internal investigation undertaken in 2003
and that was the first report which identified the need for the
single system, the single database, et cetera. What we have done
is to make a list of recommendations and we have given them a
risk assessment so that IND can see what they should be tackling
first and what they might wait for as lesser risk. We looked at
their response and then we have looked at an action plan for time.
Now, we have only just undertaken this on the basis of the first
two quarters of this year which we have conducted and IND says
in most areas, "We agree with your recommendations",
but they have not come up with specific ways to address the problems,
so we are going to have to go back now and say, "Let's discuss
which of these you are going to take on in the first instance,
how they can be taken into the system, how they can be incorporated
into the business plan and how targets can be set and then the
implementation process can be monitored by us", so I am hopeful
that that will occur, but we are only now at the point of engaging
on that particular, wide issue.
Q27 Mr Benyon: Can I ask you, Fiona
Lindsley, do you have any comments on the handling of complaints
in respect of visa applications and do you believe there should
be a similar sort of complaints audit commission in addressing
UKvisas' complaints?
Ms Lindsley: I do comment on complaints
in my reports. I comment that, although relatively few people
do complain, I think in about two-thirds of cases I found responses
to complaints unsatisfactory. Largely, people were sent a standard
letter which did not address the points they had raised in any
way and often the points were what I thought were valid points.
Of course I am slightly disadvantaged in that I look at refusals
only, so I did not have a sample of complaints because presumably
some complaints would be on files where people were granted visas
or perhaps the complaint might lead to the grant of a visa and
then it would be outside my sample, so I cannot really comment
on complaints as a whole, but I certainly did have concerns with
the processing of complaints and felt that individuals who did
complain, given that they were such a small group, ought to receive
a proper response. As to whether there should be some wider body,
I really have not given that any thought and I would not really
like to say how it should be dealt with, but I am very impressed
by the proposals here and, as I work in immigration and asylum,
I know from my other practice many of the problems that have been
outlined today.
Q28 Mr Benyon: The system of monitors
and audit, obviously you believe it is effective, but what we
have to work out is whether you are getting proper resources,
whether you feel you really have all the resources you need to
do the job properly.
Ms Coussey: Well, I would like
to come in there because I do not have any resources, except myself.
Q29 Mr Benyon: You are the resources!
Ms Lindsley: We are the same.
I have no budget, for instance, it is just me.
Ms Coussey: I think it is quite
a difficult balance once you have made one report with some suggestions
as to how far do you pursue those to see what is happening to
those and how much time do you spend on your substantive monitoring
role? Certainly I would not want to report at the end of the year
with some recommendations and proposals and not follow up to see
how they have been received and tackled and whether any of them
are being implemented, and that can be very difficult to do, as
Ann has already described. Finding the right locus in IND to follow
things up is quite a demanding task.
Dr Barker: I do feel as if my
Committee is being adequately supported. The central complaints
unit does have one official, half of whose job is devoted, or
has been devoted in the past, to the way things were done in the
past, so we have gone through a transition period, trying to redefine
what he is doing in regard to what we are now doing. It is quite
different, it is labour-intensive, but there is adequate support
because we are also doing a lot of travelling around and looking
not just at the areas of the business, but also physically looking,
for instance, at service complaints and operational complaints,
so we have to go to the repositories where they are, we are provided
with support and we have been provided with IT support which has
been helpful as well.
Ms Lindsley: Perhaps I should
say that the role of visa monitor is going to change. I have concluded
my post and the new monitor is currently being recruited and that
will be a full-time post. That monitor will monitor more files,
about double the number I have monitored, write two reports a
year and I think they will have a delegated, full-time person
at UKvisas, so there will be potentially more support for that
monitor and more time.
Q30 Mr Benyon: This may be an unfair
question, but the question we have to address is whether we start
from here and whether there is actually a case for some form of
HM inspectorate which looks at the whole area of immigration as
one organisation doing lots of different monitoring and audit.
Do any of you have a view on that or do you think that this system
where you are responsible for various different parts of it is
the best approach?
Dr Barker: Perhaps I can start
because there are several auditing bodies. IND has a proper audit
committee for IND as a whole which is looking at finances and
governance issues. The Immigration Service has an audit and quality
assurance—
Q31 Chairman: But, if I can press
you directly on Mr Benyon's question, should there be an independent
inspectorate which is not owned by IND in the sense that those
things are?
Dr Barker: Right, but what I was
doing, to fill out more of what he was saying, was saying that
there are other bodies who are doing some of the same jobs and
to a degree are overlapping. I think there would be benefit to
having one rather than three, us and the other two, but you are
playing different roles though. I do not know quite how.
Ms Coussey: I have certainly thought
about this in relation to my role and more particularly in relation
to the asylum side of it, which I have commented on quite a lot.
I think there are arguments for an independent body, but the two
obviously would not go together, as one would be more like an
inspectorate. I think there are arguments for an independent asylum
body as well for making initial decisions, but that is not what
you are asking, I realise. I think there is a problem with monitors
where these roles are increasingly being used in areas of public
administration. There is a problem with them, you are isolated,
you are one person and, as I have mentioned just now, it is difficult
to know how the report is going to be received and followed up,
and you do not have any powers to ask for things to be done at
all, but it is purely recommendations which can be rejected without
more ado, so I think if this is going to be an increasing role,
especially if appeal rights are going to be reduced in certain
areas, it has to have the necessary authority and power to do
a proper job.
Q32 Chairman: Mary Coussey, I am
a Southampton MP so we have a major airport and we have a major
port with a significant migrant population. Could you explain
to me how a race discrimination authorisation would work its way
through to immigration officers working on the front-line in my
city and how that is meant to affect the way they do their job?
Ms Coussey: The authorisations
are issued monthly with the designated nationalities on them.
At the moment there are only nationalities on them, although it
does cover ethnicity as well, but there are not currently any
authorisations allowing you to discriminate on the grounds of
ethnicity. These are issued monthly and they are disseminated
to each port. They are pinned up on notice boards, they are on
the intranet, and additionally in all ports, as far as I am aware,
there are regular briefings, even daily briefings, about current
developments, so each time the authorisation is issued, it would
be referred to in one of the regular briefings.
Q33 Chairman: What would an immigration
officer do as a result?
Ms Coussey: I do not think they
would do anything differently. I did find, when I talked to some
of them, that they were not even aware of the authorisations,
although most were. To them, what it says is that they are covered
if they need to question somebody more closely, somebody on the
authorised list.
Q34 Mr Clappison: What do you see
as the pros and cons of the authorisations that you monitor?
Ms Coussey: I said in my report
that I thought the pros were that it brought a little bit of transparency
and accountability into the system. This was happening before—
Q35 Mr Clappison: That was subjective
then?
Ms Coussey: It was totally subjective.
It was based on gut feeling and such other subjective factors.
The authorisations at least bring decisions into the formal system.
They have to be authorised by a minister and there has to be statistical
and other evidence on which the authorisations are based, so yes,
it brings in some transparency. Against that, as I have said in
my report, I think the problem is that they can become self-fulfilling.
If you say to somebody, "These are the nationalities who
have got a history of immigration abuse" or refusals or whatever
it might be, because they use the whole range of decisions, not
just refusals at ports, then, as people have said to me, "Well,
it does create a certain mindset". If you are told that these
nationals are more likely to be involved in coming through deception
or abuse, that they are not really genuine tourists, or whatever
it might be, if you look for that evidence, you are more likely
to find it. I think the other difficulty with it is that you adopt
a different standard towards such people and what would be accepted
in a national who is not on the list, it will not be accepted
for one who is not on the list.
Q36 Mr Clappison: But you would see
a need to guard against treating people who were on the list who
were bona fide visitors to the country in a different way from
other bona fide visitors from countries not on the list?
Ms Coussey: That is certainly
the case, yes.
Q37 Mr Clappison: Taking everything
into account, do you think it is necessary and effective?
Ms Coussey: Yes, I have thought
long and hard about whether it is necessary. I think it is necessary
simply because of the sheer volume of the numbers coming through.
There has to be a system that allows the Immigration Service to
focus on where there is most risk, so it is necessary from that
point of view. Is it effective? It is effective in the sense that
again it does allow them to focus their resources, but I think
there are a number of problems involved in the implementation.
Q38 Mr Clappison: You have done lots
of travelling to ports and elsewhere and looked into a lot of
cases. Do you feel that on the whole immigration officers are
making the right decisions?
Ms Coussey: I only see a tiny
fraction of the decisions. I think this is one of the problems
and this is why I have asked for further research to be done.
As soon as I walk into a port, they know who I am, so that is
going to affect how people make decisions. I cannot say across
the whole system because we are talking about 12 million people
coming in from outside the EU, so I cannot say whether all decisions
are fair and professional. Some of the cases I have seen where
I look at samples of files, I would certainly suggest that they
are not.
Q39 Mr Clappison: On the basis of
what you have seen, have you got any suggestions as to how the
quality of decision-making could be improved?
Ms Coussey: I certainly think
that there should be more detailed monitoring. You have all seen
the statistics in the annual reports about who comes in, the statistics
produced within the Immigration Service and, for instance, at
my request, they have just started to look at port refusal rates
and that has thrown up a lot of anomalies. In fact, it quite surprised
me what came out when they produced the port refusal rates. What
appeared to be the case was that the highest refusal rates were
at the small airports and I assume because they have got more
time to examine people, whereas if you are at Terminal 3 at 7
o'clock when all the intercontinental traffic is coming in and
there are 300 people in the arrivals hall, you have to be really
very focused on who it is you are going to ask further questions
of, so I think that is a factor. They do need to know why that
is. If there are differential refusal rates for same nationalities
at different ports and at different times of day, there needs
to be an explanation for that. Is it sheer pressure of work or
are there other factors? Yes, more detailed monitoring being used
in the way Ann has described to improve the business, not necessarily
to point fingers at people, but to improve the business.
|
