Examination of Witness (Questions 41-78)
MR JOHN
VINE
2 MARCH 2010
Q41 Chairman: Thank you for coming
to give evidence to us. When you first came to see us Members
of the Committee were concerned about the existence of your post
and were worried about the benchmarks set by the Government. Can
I begin by thanking you for the work that has been done so far?
You have gone out of your way to keep this Select Committee informed
with reports and letters and have done your best to make sure
that you have kept the word "independent" before the
words Chief Inspector. There remains concern about your workload
because, of course, you combine two previous posts, the entry
clearance tsar, if you like, and the new post of inspecting the
UKBA, so thank you very much for doing that. We are most grateful
to you for coming here to give evidence to us today. Your annual
report is an excellent report, I think there are 17 photographs
of you in it. Are you running for Parliament?
Mr Vine: Not at the moment, Chair,
no. There were very few members of my Inspectorate right at the
start so I thought it was important to ensure that people knew
who I was, knew that we were independent in the Inspectorate,
and that we were quite distinct from the UK Border Agency itself.
Q42 Chairman: Was this prepared internally
or did you go to a public relations organisation?
Mr Vine: It was produced professionally
by the Central Office of Information, but we produced it internally.
Q43 Chairman: As far as the public
are concerned, because obviously you cannot give everybody a copy
of this very glossy publication, is there a summary that can go
to organisations about your work, or have you sent this out more
widely to people so they understand what your role is?
Mr Vine: We sent this proactively
to all the major stakeholders in the asylum and immigration field.
We have also published it on our website and made sure the website
has an independent web address now as well, whereas it started
off with the Home Office web address. We have done our best to
circulate it and it is quite unique as an annual report because
it includes the findings last year. This is a one-off annual report;
the next one will have more opinion about the state of the Border
Agency drawn from the series of inspections we have done. This
includes recommendations from pilot inspections and others which
I think most people who read it found very informative.
Q44 Chairman: You are aware of the
recent report into the UKBA, and of the damning criticisms of
the UKBA by the Parliamentary Ombudsman. Does that match your
concerns in the reports that you have published recently about
these matters?
Mr Vine: The Parliamentary Ombudsman
has conducted a recent inspection into complaints and she deals
obviously with individual complaints from the Border Agency and
other government departments. I liaised with the Parliamentary
Ombudsman because I am also in the process of producing inspection
reports on customer handling and complaints, and in her foreword
she mentions our report. From her report she is identifying some
shortcomings in mainly the process of handling administrative
issues in relation to complaints. My inspection report is going
to look in depth at a number of cases and try and drill down into
complaints handling generally, both professional standards complaints,
complaints that are sometimes overseen by the IPCC, Independent
Police Complaints Commission, and also the handling of ordinary
complaints. Some of the things that she is finding in her reports
we are taking very much into account in our own scrutiny and that
will be published in due course.
Q45 Mrs Dean: Following on from that,
according to the Ombudsman many of the UKBA's problems are politically
driven being caused by sudden changes in priorities and switching
of resources. If you came to the same conclusion as that, would
you be able to speak out boldly to ministers, and would you expect
them to respond positively?
Mr Vine: I am trying in all my
work to look at the performance of the Border Agency within the
policy parameters it has been given. My job as an independent
inspector is not to comment on public policy; policy on immigration
is a matter for Parliament, and I am trying to look very closely
at how the Border Agency is performing within those parameters.
In the inspections that I have published so far, the ones contained
in the annual report and the one that has recently received a
lot of publicity on asylum, I am trying to get as close to commenting
frankly, openly and transparently about what are the facts based
on the evidence that I am finding, and I am trying to put that
as frankly and openly into the public domain as I can. Where I
am finding areas for improvement and evidence to support that,
that is going in my reports. Equally, where I find good practice
and people within the Border Agency working effectively, I am
trying to ensure that is highlighted in the report as well, so
there is a difficult balance to be achieved. I am hoping that
by taking a very evidence-based approach I can make sure that
I maintain that balance.
Q46 Mrs Dean: Do you comment to ministers
on the effect that policies might have had, or are having?
Mr Vine: I am sure we will come
to the Asylum Report but if I can draw on that as an example,
where I am talking about targets being unachievable, there I am
talking about what I find at the moment in time of inspection
and making a judgment based on my experience about whether that
sort of thing is possible. I am not commenting on immigration
policy per se, but I am making a judgment based on what I am finding
about whether the Border Agency is efficient and effective. Efficiency
and effectiveness is really at the heart of my role, looking at
whether this organisation is efficient and effective, where it
can be improved, and it is in all our interests to make sure we
have a very effective UK Border Agency in securing Britain's borders.
Q47 David Davies: Mr Vine, you are
shortly going to be looking at Cardiff, I understand.
Mr Vine: We have been looking
at Cardiff. We are in the process of writing the report.
Q48 David Davies: You will be aware
of the whistleblower from Cardiff who has suggested there is a
cover-up going on over the figures? It was reported in the Western
Mail recently.
Mr Vine: Yes. I listened to the
evidence this morning, as well.
Q49 David Davies: You will know what
this is and this suggests that Cardiff are granting a huge number
of cases immediately and only a handful of people are being removed—3%,
2%, 2%, very small. Out of over 100 people in one case only three
were removed, and that is typical for the different areas of UKBA.
Is this your experience, that only one or two out of every 100
people are removed?
Mr Vine: As part of the asylum
scrutiny we have looked at files from across the UK Border Agency
including that region and all the other regions as well. We found
in the report, and I report upon it in here, that the mix of cases
varies enormously depending on the region that you are looking
at. For example, the Wales region may get a mix of cases where
it is very difficult to remove failed asylum seekers; in other
regions they may have more of a mix of cases where case workers
find it easier to identify cases where removal is more possible.
Q50 David Davies: The highest figure
I can find is 4%. Do you know of anywhere where more than 4% of
asylum seekers in each cohort are being deported?
Mr Vine: We have looked extensively
at the figures and at the way the Border Agency are handling asylum.
In the report what I am reporting on is that we find that, generally
speaking, the case workers that the Border Agency has dealing
with these cases, on the basis of what we have witnessed, are
dealing with them effectively and within the rules.
Q51 David Davies: So that 4% is the
highest we can expect?
Mr Vine: If that is what the figures
say at the moment, that will be the case.
Q52 David Davies: Do you think we
should have access to these figures? It is amazing that they had
to be leaked. Would you agree—and this is not an aggressive
question, forgive me if it sounds that way—that Members
of the Home Affairs Select Committee should have access to the
monthly cohort snapshot so we can see what is going on?
Mr Vine: What I am trying to do
is put as much information into the public domain as possible.
Q53 Chairman: Mr Vine, Mr Davies
asked a specific question. Do you think that that information
should be left to a whistleblower to be given to Members of Parliament?
Do you not think that that kind of information, which is important
information, ought to be included in the letter that is sent to
us by the Head of the Immigration Department? It is statistics,
is it not?
Mr Vine: If you would find, as
a Committee, that information to be helpful in giving you an overview
of the position in relation to asylum—
Q54 Chairman: You are the Chief Inspector,
do you think this kind of information ought to be made available?
Mr Vine: If you would find it
helpful, then I would say make that request. You have to look
beneath the bare statistics and the reasons behind the statistics
as well, and that is what we have tried to do here.
Q55 David Davies: At the moment I
do not get statistics unless somebody decides to leak them to
me, and I am looking at them and below them and what I find is
absolutely horrifying, that about a third of all people who claim
asylum are given it straight away by officials like Ms Perrett—and
I am sure she did a very good job but others obviously did not—and
even though the rest of them should not be here only a handful,
maybe 1 or 2%, are deported, and I find that absolutely horrifying.
Mr Vine: You would have to make
that request to the Chief Executive, but if you would find that
helpful as a Committee I do not have any problem personally in
relation to that.
Q56 Mr Winnick: Mr Vine, we are constantly
being told by the Chief Executive and others that the backlog
of cases is being cleared, but you are far from optimistic about
that happening, are you not?
Mr Vine: You are talking about
the legacy case work, I presume?
Q57 Mr Winnick: Indeed.
Mr Vine: At the time we inspected
this particular issue, we found that four and a half thousand
cases a month were being concluded on the basis of an estimated
450,000 cases at the start of this whole process, and about 200,000
left. The Border Agency needs to be clearing far more per month
than we found in our inspection report. That is why I recommended
that the Border Agency should produce an action plan and present
milestones to show how they are going to clear this backlog by
the declared date of July 2011. In addition I made recommendation
that it is likely that at the end of the legacy cases there are
still going to be some that are outstanding, and there needs to
be a very clear view and an action plan about how those continue
to be taken forward, so I am far from confident and I express
that very frankly in the report.
Q58 Mr Winnick: We will have the
Chief Executive in front of us very shortly but all Members of
Parliament, myself included of course, received replies along
predictable lines telling us in effect that they cannot resolve
the particular case we have been writing about but all will be
resolved by next year, so presumably we should not put too much
faith in that. Now, you say that targets are set by top management
without consultation with those doing the actual work. That is
a rather serious accusation, is it not?
Mr Vine: From my experience I
have always found it useful to ask people on the front line, and
I usually find that people on the front line tend to have a lot
of opinions about how the job they are doing can be done more
effectively. I have found a dearth of evidence of that happening
and I would like to encourage the Border Agency to do that more,
and that is why I made that recommendation in the report.
Q59 Mr Winnick: One would expect
that to happen in any organisation, that you could find out from
the people doing the job how they are going about it and then
make an assessment accordingly. You reached a conclusion that
this is not being done in the organisation and obviously we will
question the Chief Executive accordingly but, by and large, in
your assessment, Mr Vine, we should remain pretty pessimistic
about a backlog being cleared by next year?
Mr Vine: What I am saying is that
at the time of the inspection we did not find the rates to be
as high as they should be in order to clear against that figure.
Clearly, if more resources or different working methods are put
in place that might change the position. What we did find on the
positive side is that the leadership of the Case Resolution Directorate,
as it is now called, was very good. We found people very clearly
focused on the targets to achieve resolution of the legacy casework
backlog, and I do say in the report, to give some credit to the
Border Agency, that the underlying performance in relation to
being driven by some of these targets is better than it has been,
so there is some hope but I can only base my recommendations on
what I find at that moment in time, and I am drawing, I suppose,
your attention to that fact. I make the recommendation very clearly
about an action plan. That would benefit everybody.
Q60 Mr Clappison: You are telling
us about the backlog of asylum cases. Originally you mentioned
a figure of 400,000?
Mr Vine: That is correct.
Q61 Mr Clappison: Which all came
to light in 2006?
Mr Vine: Yes.
Q62 Mr Clappison: Since then about
235,000 have been resolved through clearing up what is the reason
for the backlog?
Mr Vine: That is right.
Q63 Mr Clappison: That was the backlog
in 2006. Are you concerned that a new backlog has been building
up since then of other asylum cases since 2006?
Mr Vine: Yes, I am. At the time
of the inspection we found that there were 29,474 cases that had
been created around the new asylum model. The new asylum model
was brought in in March 2007 as a new approach in handling asylum
where a dedicated case worker related to each individual asylum
case. The idea was to provide a rapport between the asylum seeker
and the case worker but it was also designed as a system to speed
up the removal of people who had no right to asylum, and it was
also going to be a more cost effective and efficient method. What
I am concerned about now is that some of the targets, for example,
the 90% of asylum cases to be achieved within six months, are
driving behaviour which means that many of these new asylum model
cases are being put to one side in order to concentrate on the
cohort of cases that enables the Border Agency to achieve its
target in the milestone month.
Q64 Mr Clappison: Is that not exactly
what happens to produce the original backlog of 400,000? That
we have cases put to one side, filed away for years, which then
come back to light?
Mr Vine: I do not go back that
many years.
Q65 Mr Clappison: Some of us do.
Mr Vine: Some of you do, but what
concerns me is this is now a figure of around 30,000 cases. This
is a mixture of cases where some cases have a general legal barrier
to the return of the failed asylum seeker, but some of the cases
are ones where no initial decision on asylum has been made within
the six month period. That is regrettable, and what I would not
want to see is this new cohort of cases growing beyond what we
found in the inspection. It is almost a case of behaviour to achieve
some unachievable targets creating perverse behaviour in another
important area and having a knock-on effect. I make a recommendation
in my report to say that the Border Agency should address this
30,000 group of cases with some urgency and ensure that it does
not get any bigger than it is at the moment.
Q66 Mr Clappison: These 30,000 have
to be decided on normal legal principles, whereas the legacy cases
are being dealt with on special criteria, are they not?
Mr Vine: We looked at the criteria
against which legacy case work was being concluded, and we found
it was being concluded in accordance with those criteria.
Q67 Mr Clappison: But those are not
the criteria which normally apply to asylum work. It depends on
how long somebody has been here, and not whether they have a meritorious
case or fleeing persecution.
Mr Vine: But these 30,000 cases
are the new asylum model, and this is a new and good system which
has been commended by the National Audit Office when they looked
at asylum at the beginning of last year, and it is a system which
should be supported and which will bode well for the future. Having
a queue of cases, however, relating to that particular model is
concerning.
Q68 Mr Clappison: We have been told
about another backlog of non asylum cases which has come to light
and is being dealt with by the UK Border Agency. Are you familiar
with that?
Mr Vine: Is this the 40,000?
Q69 Mr Clappison: Exactly. We have
not got details of them but they are longstanding, non asylum
cases which have not been dealt with. Are you familiar with those?
Mr Vine: I am familiar with the
figure but we have not looked at that issue as an Inspectorate.
At the moment obviously my focus has been on asylum and I am concerned
about the cases that we are reporting on in this particular document.
Q70 Chairman: Apart from asylum there
is the issue of settlement cases and the general operation of
the UK Border Agency. Every one of the Members sitting around
this Committee will have written to Ms Homer on casework issues.
Is there a mechanism by which you can look at the concerns of
Members of Parliament over the way in which casework is being
handled by the UKBA? We tend to get a standard letter saying "Come
back in 2011" which quite irritates Members of Parliament
and upsets constituents who come back every few months saying,
"But it is the same letter you gave me a few months ago".
Mr Vine: I understand that entirely,
Chair. I held a surgery here in Portcullis House as part of the
asylum scrutiny which I invited MPs to attend. We had 12 either
MPs or their researchers represented at that meeting where I heard
at first hand the views of MPs. As part of our scrutiny on complaints
handling, which is being written up at the moment, I questionnaired
all MPs. We had 120 responses from MPs to that particular scrutiny
and their findings are going to be incorporated in the write-up
of that report.
Q71 Chairman: Did anyone praise the
work of the UKBA?
Mr Vine: The figures are being
analysed at the moment, Chair, so it would be wrong of me to disclose
any of the findings of the report before it is published, but
obviously we will look at the findings very carefully.
Q72 Chairman: Thank you.
Mr Vine: I am making attempts
to try and address that issue, and we make a recommendation in
the Asylum Report to the Border Agency asking them to redouble
their efforts to keep people informed. We also identify on the
same issue that with case workers who take over, say, some of
these 30,000 cases in the new asylum model, the asylum seeker
is not made aware of the change of case worker, so we are urging
the Border Agency to do more to identify to the asylum seekers
and their representatives who is dealing with their case, in both
the legacy casework and new asylum cases.
Q73 Mrs Dean: Is there any evidence
of a backlog of cases developing in any other area of the UK Border
Agency's business other than asylum?
Mr Vine: I will only be able to
discover that once I inspect other parts of the business. I have
no evidence to suggest that at the moment.
Q74 Mrs Cryer: Your first annual
report, which takes account of 15 months to September 2009, shows
that UKBA have accepted the great majority of your recommendations
so far. You started off with the more straightforward recommendations.
As you get on to more complex recommendations, do you think the
UKBA are likely to accept those as well? I have no idea what those
are going to be.
Mr Vine: I hope so. There is no
point me making recommendations unless some action is going to
be taken and things change. I intend to write to the Chief Executive
of the Border Agency formally at the beginning of April to ask
what has happened to the recommendations I have made from all
the reports published thus far. I am going to ask her to tell
me what has changed in terms of the working practice of the Border
Agency in respect of the areas that I have inspected, and then
I will have to decide whether I have to re-inspect certain parts
of the Border Agency's work and what other action I am prepared
to take. I have a range of things in mind to follow up. I have
been very encouraged by the co-operation with the Border Agency
at a senior level. There has been good co-operation on the ground.
The vast majority, if not all, of the recommendations I have made
have been accepted, so the next stage is to make sure things have
changed.
Q75 Chairman: Your inspection plan,
Mr Vine, which you are going to be publishing very shortly will
presumably look at the work you have planned for yourself over
the next period, 2010/2011. You will have noted the tiny raised
eyebrows of Members of this Committee that you chose to go to
Rome for your first inspection and, following that, Singapore.
Wonderful destinations but we wonder whether they are hotspots.
We are much more keen on your visits to places like Islamabad
and the important work you are doing here. This is a huge job,
as we said in our report when you were appointed, and that is
why we said to the Government that more resources needed to be
given to you, and we worried about the entry clearance post being
merged with yours. This is a very, very wide area. Are you satisfied
that you have the resources to cope with this very huge area of
work?
Mr Vine: Yes, I have, Chair. There
was a little bit of a misunderstanding about Rome. At the same
time we started the international work we were also beavering
away in places like Croydon, and that resulted in the reports
that are contained in the annual report, The domestic work has
always been the major part of the Inspectorate's work and that
started at the same time. We have continued with the international
work as well. It will be done slightly differently from the way
the Independent Monitor did it, but in the same way she did it
differently from her predecessor. There were five roles, not two,
merged into this new Inspectorate, and I am very keen to ensure
that we continue the good work of all those monitoring bodies
through various strands of work now coming through as reports,
so you can now see the evidence of what we are doing. This last
week I have had a team in Islamabad because I have started scrutinising
the visa issue around Islamabad and Abu Dhabi. We have currently
started looking at the North West of England enforcement and the
removal of children of families, so lots of issues that have been
of interest to this Committee before. Some of the issues that
have been raised here before on the overseas side around administrative
review and the grant of visas are all issues that are now being
contained in inspection reports overseas. Kuala Lumpur, for example,
has recently been published and Chennai is to be published in
the next week or so. At the moment, therefore, I am satisfied
that we can manage all the responsibilities. It is a broad remit
but if I feel that I do not have the resources, Chair, then I
shall say so.
Q76 Chairman: At the end of the day,
what concerns Members of this House and this Committee are the
people who come to us who have been waiting for years for a decision
from the UKBA, and all they want is a yes or a no.
Mr Vine: I understand.
Q77 Chairman: To keep it going for
years and years and not reply to letters and then say "No"
at the end is bound to cause trouble. It is obviously up to you
to decide what you want to do, but one of the key features of
the reports of this Committee over the last 20 years has been
to look at the administration of the Immigration Department, now
the UKBA. I know you have a very broad canvas to work from but
this is an issue that really does concern us on a day-to-day basis.
Mr Vine: I am speaking to a lot
of people, they are telling me a great deal, and I am prioritising
my work with MPs very much in mind.
Q78 Chairman: We are very grateful
for the work you have done, and you have made some very good progress
over the last few months. Thank you for coming.
Mr Vine: Thank you.
| 
