Examination of Witnesses (Questions 940
- 959)
TUESDAY 6 JUNE 2006
MS LIN
HOMER, MS
MANDIE CAMPBELL
AND MR
PHIL WHEATLEY
Q940 Chairman: We understand the
witness we were due to have seen has been suspended, is that right?
Ms Homer: That is not entirely
correct. There is an investigation underway and, pending the results
of that investigation, he has been removed from his post.
Q941 Mr Spring: I just wondered when
this investigation would be completed?
Ms Homer: Fairly rapidly is the
answer to that, but I have asked for it to be undertaken at arm's
length from me; so I would want to give that team the time to
undertake the investigations as fully as they felt necessary.
Q942 Mr Winnick: I am not quite clear,
Chairman, the official who has been suspended, when did that occur
and on what basis was that suspension taken and by whom?
Ms Homer: Chairman, I am quite
happy to answer general questions but I do not think it appropriate
for me in a public setting to go into the detail of an investigation
that is currently underway. It was my management decision that
an investigation was necessary. I am very happy and indeed am
keeping my ministers informed; and I do not think it is appropriate
to give more detail than that about a matter that is currently
under investigation.
Q943 Chairman: Can I start by asking
you, you have been in your post for several months during which
the issue of release of foreign prisoners who have been considered
for deportation has obviously come up and hit the headlines and
has been one of the issues which has dominated discussion about
IND. You must now have formed a clear view as to how this situation
developed. Could you summarise for the Committee what you think
went wrong and who was responsible?
Ms Homer: You are correct that
this has become a big issue in recent months. I have to say, the
full depth and extent of it has not been clear for that many weeks.
It was a mid-point in about March, I think, when there was real
clarity about the nature and extent. The Home Secretary has asked
me to undertake a full investigation, but has asked me to do that
at a point when we believe the current crisis is under control—and
I think that was a point he made clear to the Committee when he
attended. My view from my preliminary consideration is that this
is a relatively classic case of demand outstripping supply in
an area of casework; and in that respect not dissimilar to the
position I have seen, for instance, in social care authorities
in my previous role in local government. In effect we had a number
of cases being referred from the prisons, from the ports and occasionally
directly from the police; those were received into the unit that
deals with them; there was a system of allocating those in a fairly
simple queuing system—so as they came in they were allocated.
Where the numbers coming in were not matched by caseworkers to
whom they could be allocated, in theory the system should have
then queued those cases and handed them on; but I think what is
plain is that at some points work that has not been concluded
has effectively been filed rather than left in the queue. What
we have got is a situation where we have created an intermittent
backlog. The generality of that had been raised, and indeed the
broad issue of resources was raised with me in the summer last
year not long after I started; and indeed the management in this
area and myself agreed to put extra money into the budget with
effect from this April; and also agreed to look for some agency
staff in the meantime so that we could put more resources in.
To a degree, as those extra resources came on board and we were
able to look more closely at what was happening, I think the inadequacies
of the prioritisation of the case allocation system, and the depths
to which we were allowing prisoners whose sentences had been concluded
to be released before consideration, became fully clear, as I
say, in March. I am sure I will learn more, but that would be
my summary of the underlying challenges in this case. You asked
me as to who is responsible: that is quite a challenging issue
for me to consider because, to a degree, I think you have to hold
me responsible because I am in charge of the business; but what
I would hope and expect is that we could also put in place performance
management systems that will flag more clearly than was the case
on this occasion the absolute level of work we are not dealing
with and allow a management response in a more timely and effective
manner than I have to say I think I have achieved in response
to this.
Q944 Chairman: That is a noble thing
to do but this situation has grown up over four or five years
at least and it is hard for the Committee I think to understand.
There must have been people in the organisation who were aware
that foreign prisoners (some of whom had been apparently recommended
for deportation by the courts, others of whom should have been
considered for deportation) were never considered and they were
being released. The organisation at some level must have been
aware of that. At which level was the organisation aware that
foreign prisoners were being released; and at which level did
the organisation fail to do anything about it?
Ms Homer: I believe that the clear
knowledge of the full extent of the failure was only understood
at a relatively junior level, which is why (and I am not being
noble) I do not think it fair to leave the responsibility for
resolving problems like this at a junior level. I think it must
have been clear to caseworkers and the junior manager in charge
of the team that they were not dealing with all the cases that
were coming through the door. What was not clear, I think, was
that one of the consequences of that was that more serious cases
were amongst those not being considered. That is why I make the
direct comparison, say, to a social care situation where there
may well often be a mismatch of the number of cases being referred
and the number of qualified social workers to refer them to. What
you have to do is think about the numbers each caseworker can
manage, and I think sensibly you need a case-management system
that also allocates the most important cases, and those would
be two in my view: firstly, those coming up for imminent release;
and, secondly, those relating to more serious crimes which are
more likely to lead, on consideration, to a deportation and/or
a risk of public safety.
Q945 Chairman: I think we can all
understand at least the possibilities of a situation where too
few junior staff were being asked to do too much work, and where
they were not being effectively managed in terms of prioritising
the work and therefore not being asked to protect public safety
in a way the public have a right to expect. What I do not understand
is why IND is the sort of organisation that could allow that to
happen. What is it about IND that tolerates that level of risk
to public safety and nobody in the organisation feels a responsibility
to do anything about it?
Ms Homer: I think IND is an organisation
that is in transition. I think in recent years it has done a lot
to move into a much stronger performance management arena. I inherited
a fairly full set of performance indicators, for instance, but
in my experience it takes a number of years for an organisation
to become fully adept at moving from gathering information to
really learning how to interrogate and use that information and
then utilise it to make performance improvements in the way it
runs its business. I have to say, I think we are part-way through
that. I suspect it will continue to take us a number of years
to become as strong on performance management as I would want
and expect us to be.
Q946 Chairman: Performance management—it
depends what the word means I suppose. We are not talking about
performance management; we are talking about somebody having the
responsibility to say, "We are letting dangerous people get
into the community and our organisation is failing", and
there will be somebody in the organisation to recognise that should
not happen. There do not seem to be any signs that IND has actually
changed its culture so that people take responsibility for what
is actually happening?
Ms Homer: I think the Home Secretary
referred in a number of his contributions to you to the need for
us to provide leadership and the right processes and systems for
our staff to feel confident that they can do that. I think that
is my responsibility, to create that culture in which the organisation
believes they share a responsibility with me for the organisation
performance of the whole and not, if you like, just the piece
they are tasked to do. I think there is some evidence that the
business has people with that calibre, quality and commitment
in it. Indeed, since I started, I have already had several occasions
when relatively junior members of staff have contacted me directly
to say, "We think something different should be done in our
business". When that happens one of the things I try to do
is to meet with or at least speak with those people, hear what
they have to say and consider whether we can do something about
it. I think it does take effort from within the organisation
and responses from people such as me to create a culture in which
that is seen not only as the right way to do things but the kind
of behaviour from staff that we would value.
Q947 Chairman: Let us see if there
is any sign of this changing. Two weeks ago the Home Secretary
came in front of this Committee and had what to the Home Secretary
must have been a deeply embarrassing experience of telling us
people were in prison who had actually be released on bail. How
could it possibly be under your leadership that nobody saw fit
presumably to tell you, or to tell the Home Secretary, that people
we had been tracking down across the country and putting in prison
had been released on bail? After all of this period of time, in
which this has dominated the headlines, how can it be the Secretary
of State is put in front of this Committee and gives misleading
information to this House; and we all accept he gave us that information
in good faith, but it is a serious matter for your Department
to mislead this Committee about a matter of great public service.
You have been in charge for months now and this is a dominant
issue and yet we have still been given the wrong information.
How could that possibly happen?
Ms Homer: I agree and deeply regret
that and would apologise to you myself for that error in information.
The truth of the matter is our data collection systems are not
good—and again I think the Home Secretary was honest with
you about that; and I think we have a system (and it is the point
I was trying to make about performance management) where the importance
of good quality accurate information being collected, being used
and being shared is clearly not driven through my organisation
yet.
Q948 Chairman: With respect, yes,
I can see this partly about data collection but it is surely about
the fact that everybody involved in defending those cases, the
Asylum and Immigration Tribunal, must have read the newspapers,
must have been aware there was some public interest in the murder,
the rapist and the child sex offender; and when they came back,
having lost the case, it surely must have occurred to them that
this was a matter of wider interest and not just another day at
the office? What I cannot understand about your leadership of
IND is why did nobody think they should tell you and why did nobody
say, "We've got a crisis here"?
Ms Homer: That is why I am undertaking
an investigation, Chairman. I too was surprised not to know. It
suggests I have a lot of work to do, I think.
Q949 Chairman: It suggests there
is a lot of work to do. On what grounds were those who had been
released granted bail?
Ms Homer: The bail that was granted
to individuals is subject to agreement. They vary in each of the
cases, but they would include agreements about where they are
residing and include sureties—
Q950 Chairman: I will come on to
conditions in a moment. On what grounds were they granted bail?
Perhaps I should check but we are assuming that the Home Office
opposed bail?
Ms Homer: We did in all but one
case, where there was indication already that there were no grounds
to oppose bail. In all the others we have opposed, and in a number
we have opposed successfully.
Q951 Chairman: In the unopposed case
is that a serious offender?
Ms Homer: No. I am sorry I do
not have the full details with me. No, I do not think so. I think
there were some very clear reasons why we were unable to oppose
on the day, but it was on the basis of a discussion with the Tribunal
and consideration by our legal representative.
Q952 Chairman: Why, in your view,
did the Tribunal grant bail overall, or go against what the Home
Office was seeking?
Ms Homer: It is always tempting
but difficult to put yourself in the minds of the judiciary. They
have to consider the application for bail in the context of the
risk of granting bail versus the detriment of not; and, therefore,
a judgment is made about the risk of absconding and the harm done.
The judiciary have a duty to weigh those things up in the balance.
Clearly we believe that in many more of these cases bail should
have been refused, but it is our opportunity to put our cases;
the applicant puts theirs and the judicial process obviously allows
the judiciary to weigh those things up.
Q953 Chairman: Are you now represented
at a more senior level?
Ms Homer: Yes. When I became aware
of the issue I did ask that we increase the level of legal representation
and legal advice we were taking.
Q954 Chairman: Are you normally represented
by barristers now?
Ms Homer: Or lawyers. We have
presenting officers within the Immigration Service who are not
always fully legally trained.
Q955 Chairman: They are not legally
trained at all, are they?
Ms Homer: Some of them are.
Q956 Chairman: Most of them are not
and they have no legal qualifications, have they?
Ms Homer: That is right. What
I have asked is that our legal team be involved in this decision
about the level of representation in individual cases so that
we can make the most vigorous applications to oppose in those
cases where we feel it necessary.
Q957 Chairman: When we visited the
Tribunal we saw the presenting officers turn up without documents
required to defend the Home Office on more than one occasion on
the morning we went there. Are you confident there is never a
case where the presenting officer is not able to defend the bail
application because they did not have the papers?
Ms Homer: I have asked the question
about the applications that happened before I was aware and I
have not been told of any cases where papers were not available.
I think when you visited you did witness some of the problems
we sometimes get where a case will appear before a tribunal before
all the case details are before us. I think that is something
that is regrettable and something we need to try and work more
closely with the Tribunals to avoid.
Q958 Chairman: How many bail applications
have you lost since the Home Secretary was forced to write to
the Committee?
Ms Homer: It is changing on a
daily basis in two respects: one is, some are happening each day;
and the other is that bail applications come up for renewal. Some
originally granted are subsequently withdrawn and vice versa.
To be honest, it is very difficult to give you other than a daily
snapshot.
Q959 Chairman: I would like to know
how many offenders, and particularly serious offenders, where
you have failed to defend a bail application since the Home Secretary
wrote to us?
Ms Homer: I do not have yesterday's
information available. Would you be happy for me to write with
today's figure once we get it?
| 
