Appendix: Government Response
Letter from Mark Harper MP, Minister for Immigration,
17 January 2014
I am writing to thank the Committee for their report
"The work of the UK Border Agency (October-December 2012)".
Please find enclosed a copy of the Government's response to this
report.
I apologise for the delay in providing this response.
As always, we want to ensure that as a Department we are providing
the Committee with a complete response of the highest quality.
Collating the necessary information from across the Department
is a time-consuming process.
Please note that we are currently finalising the
Government's response to the Committee's report 'The work of the
UK Border Agency (January-March 2013)'.
We are working to have this response with the Committee
as soon as possible.
Introduction
The Home Office would like to thank the Committee
for its report published in July on the work of the UK Border
Agency. The Government has been clear that the UK Border Agency
was a troubled organisation since its formation in 2008 and its
performance was not good enough. That is why we split the Agency
and brought its work into the Home Office under two distinct directorates.
We are building an immigration system that the public can have
confidence in. We have already reformed the immigration rules
and net migration is down by nearly a third since its peak in
2010 and across government we are working hard to bring it down
further. It will take many years to fix the system but we are
already making improvements, including reducing backlogs. Our
newly created UK Visas and Immigration directorate is focused
on delivering a high-volume, high-quality visa service while Immigration
Enforcement is getting tough on those who break our immigration
laws.
The Home Office has considered the recommendations
of the report and the Government response is below.
THE ABOLITION OF THE UKBA
Conclusion/Recommendation 1
The Committee was surprised at Mr Sedwill's admission
and struggle to see how the new organisation is to tackle the
'closed, secretive and defensive culture' if it is made up of
the same people as before.
taken with
Conclusion/ Recommendation 2
During evidence to the Committee on the 11 June
2013 Sarah Rapson, Interim Director General of UK Visas and Immigration,
was asked what changes to personnel had been made since her appointment
on the 18 April 2013. She said that there were: "No new people
apart from my private office [...] I am currently talking both
with Ministers and the Permanent Secretary about the arrangements
for my top team".
taken with
Conclusion/Recommendation 3
The Committee were deeply concerned by this admission.
If we are to see a shift in culture the new organisational structure
and management must be complemented by the ability for a wholesale
restructuring of the employees of the organisation. The newly
appointed Directors General must have the ability and resources
necessary to implement this change. The Home Office should outline
exactly how they propose to bring about this change in culture.
It is currently unclear how they plan to address this issue. In
her evidence to the Committee on 11th June 2013 Sarah Rapson when
asked if she thought the Immigration Service would ever be fixed
she said:
Is it ever going to be fixed? I think I answered
that question from you earlier. I don't think so.
The Committee were surprised by this revelation.
Although we welcome Ms Rapson's honesty, the Committee are concerned
that the person tasked with 'fixing' the agency does not think
the job will ever be complete. We are concerned this is an admission
that Ms Rapson does not have the resources necessary to 'fix'
the service. The Home Office should work to reveal the full scale
of the backlog so that it is able to apportion the funds necessary
to clear the backlog.
taken with
Conclusion/Recommendation 4
The UK Border Agency had a troubled history. Many
of its problems predate the establishment of the Agency. Ministers
must now explain how those problems will not outlive its demise.
Establishing the UK Border Agency as an executive agency did not
resolve the problems experienced by the old Home Office Immigration
and Nationality Directorate and there is no reason to suppose
that re-integrating those functions back into the Home Office
will do so either. Further, significant change, to management
structures, information sharing, processes and IT systems will
be required if the Home Office is to succeed in raising the standard
of its borders and immigration work.
Government response
On 26 March the Home Secretary announced her decision
to abolish the UK Border Agency and replace it with two new operational
commands sitting within the Home Office. UK Visas and Immigration
(UKVI) is focused on delivering a high-volume service, making
high-quality decisions about who comes here, with a culture of
customer satisfaction for business customers and visitors who
want to come here legally. Immigration Enforcement has law enforcement
at its heart and is focused on getting tough on those who break
our immigration laws. Each command has Director General level
leadership and a distinct culture and focus. Both now report directly
to Ministers, under the oversight of a new strategic oversight
board, delivering greater transparency, accountability and ensuring
all parts of the system are working together effectively.
The interim Directors General are leading comprehensive
reviews of processes, caseloads and culture. Simultaneously,
the Home Office is consolidating and streamlining its corporate
services, identifying where resource can be moved to the frontline.
We are also introducing the new Immigration Bill, which is currently
before Parliament, which will include measures to streamline the
appeals and removals process to support the organisational changes
we are making to transform the immigration system.
In Paragraph 11 the Committee asks when the Performance
and Compliance Unit (PCU) will be operational and for information
on its core functions.
PCU centralised the performance and compliance functions
of the former UK Border Agency (now covering Border Force, UK
Visas and Immigration and Immigration Enforcement). The rationale
behind the decision to create PCU was to establish a single point
within the borders and immigration system to report on operational
performance and activity.
PCU is currently operational and has been since March
2012. Since then PCU has had a significant impact on rigor and
robustness in reporting and is continuing to focus on driving
up performance across the borders and immigration system.
The Home Secretary, in November 2012, commissioned
the Independent Chief Inspector (ICI) of Borders and Immigration
to investigate whether PCU would deliver an effective audit mechanism
and provide the correct level of assurance of the department to
Ministers, the Permanent Secretary and senior officials. The report
resulted in PCU receiving some positive findings, with the ICI
stating:
"I examined the steps that were being taken
by the PCU to improve the accuracy and reliability of the Agency's
performance reporting. I found that robust processes were being
put in place to check the accuracy of reports produced on issues
such as removals performance and legacy cases, with the PCU playing
an independent role in checking and verifying data produced by
staff in the Agency's operational units.
I was satisfied, on the basis of my investigation,
that the PCU had the potential to deliver an effective audit mechanism
of immigration functions and the correct level of assurance on
the performance of these functions."
The full report and Home Office response is available
on the ICI website which gives more detail on the Unit's creation
and operational objectives.
Additionally, in Paragraph 13 the Committee asks
for clarification about the role of Rob Whiteman following the
break-up of the Agency. The Minister for Immigration wrote to
the Chairman of the Committee on 06 June outlining the areas of
responsibility of each of the new commands. Since that date Mr
Whiteman has been offered a new role as Chief Executive of the
Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and left
the Home Office on 01 September with the Home Secretary's thanks
and good wishes.
ENTRY CLEARANCE IN THE GULF: CONCLUSIONS
Conclusion/Recommendation 5
The UK Visas and Immigration Directorate should
look to the out-of-country visa processing operation as a model
of good practice, to be disseminated more widely around the directorate.
We recommend that the Home Office establish a programme of short-
to medium-term secondments in and out of the entry clearance operation
so that staff throughout the Directorate can have an opportunity
to share their knowledge and skills, and senior managers can develop
a better understanding of what works, and apply it to those areas
of the operation where improvement is required.
Government response
We are pleased the Committee has recognised the strong
performance and good practice of the overseas visa processing
operation. We have worked hard over the years to ensure that we
meet our processing targets and have introduced many processes
to increase our effectiveness and efficiency overseas. Staff from
across the whole immigration operation have always been deployed
to our overseas visa operation, along with staff from the FCO.
Since the beginning of the 2013-2014 financial year,
almost 25% of officers deployed overseas have been from in-country
operations. They return then to their original teams at the end
of their postings, taking with them the experience that they have
gained from their posting. These are all operational roles, a
mixture of short-term (one to six months) and long-term (two to
four years) postings, principally at Entry Clearance Officer and
Manager grades. We have established a visa processing operation
in Sheffield, and our operational managers there have already
begun to share their working practices with their in-country operation
counterparts.
We recognise that there are significant similarities
between an application made overseas and one made in the UK. The
experience for applicants should be easy, transparent and as quick
as possible. To instil this culture across both operations, we
have created within UK Visas and Immigration a cross cutting function
to manage customer engagement, performance, and change work. A
single Director will lead this function and be responsible for
ensuring common monitoring of performance and continuous improvement
across UKVI.
Conclusion/Recommendation 6
The Home Office should set a target for making
its entry-clearance operation paperless by the end of the next
Parliament in 2020. The flow of information and documentation
should be electronic from the visa application centre, through
the entry-clearance operation and any appeal. The paperless system
should also extend to in-country visa renewals, an area of persistently
weak performance.
Government response
Work is in train to make the immigration system as
close to paperless as possible within these timescales, both overseas
and in-country. We do not believe that we will be able to stop
all paper entering the organisation but we are taking action to
minimise the volumes received and digitise existing paperwork
where possible. We are working with support from the Government
Digital Service to develop a digital application process, aligned
to the Government's digital by default agenda.
Conclusion/Recommendation 7
The decision letter for Refusal of Entry Clearance
is an example of a poor system that must be addressed. The basis
for an appeal is determined on this decision letter. If the refusal
were made clearer applicants would be able to determine what additional
documents were needed and would not need to contact their MP.
The Home Office should remodel the refusal notice to make it more
understandable to both applicants and sponsors, clearly detailing
the additional documents needed for a successful application.
This would considerably reduce both the amount of time spent by
MPs on such cases and the level of correspondence between MPs
and the Home Office. We were glad that Mr Sedwill and Ms Rapson
accepted this and we see no reason why this cannot be implemented
immediately. We remain surprised by how unclear much of the guidance
is for applicants; even those experienced in immigration matters
can easily miss details buried in the supporting documents provided.
The guidance should be amended so that it is clear what information
is required, and how it should be provided. We further expect
that where the additional information required is relatively minor,
a clear request for it to be provided could lead to a quick reconsideration,
rather than starting the entire process again.
Government response
Over 75% of visa applications are for visit visas.
The visitor rules do not include specified documents or evidence,
and rely on an assessment of the application in credibility terms.
We have reviewed the way in which entry clearance officers present
refusal decisions, focusing on the evidence that has been provided
by the applicant, rather than what is not available to the decision
maker. The refusal decisions explain more clearly why the evidence
submitted, and the applicant's individual circumstances,
do not satisfy the requirements of the Immigration Rules. We have
been training all new entry clearance staff prior to commencing
their postings in this method since July 2013, and we are currently
rolling this training out across all entry clearance posts.
UKVI has sought to provide more clarity for customers
by producing a two page, plain English information sheet, which
covers the most common reasons why an application fails under
the Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) route. We have placed the information
sheet alongside the application form and policy guidance on the
external website so that it is readily available to those making
initial applications. The document was also issued with refusal
notices between mid-August and the end of September to raise awareness.
We intend to expand this work to other routes.
EX-FOREIGN NATIONAL OFFENDERS
Conclusion/recommendation 8
Although the Agency has continued to make slow
progress in removing the 2006 cohort of foreign prisoners, we
are concerned that the number of foreign national ex-offenders
living in the community rose by 122 in the final quarter of 2012.
The length of time taken to deport an ex-FNO has also increased
by nine days. These problems must not be allowed to go unchecked.
Government response
Of the 362 Foreign National Offenders (FNOs) released
from prison in the final quarter of 2012 who were living in the
community prior to deportation, 305 were released by an Immigration
Judge on bail, as is evidenced by the letter from David Wood and
Sarah Rapson to the Committee of 10 July. The Home Office must
also release those where we have been unable to maintain detention
because deportation is not possible within a reasonable period
of time. These individuals are assessed according to level of
risk and wherever possible those released are placed on reporting
restrictions whilst the Home Office continues to pursue deportation.
The principal barriers in these cases are the situations
in countries of return, non-compliance on the part of individuals
which means that we have insufficient evidence of nationality
and/or identity to obtain a travel document, and ongoing legal
challenges. In addition we saw a rise in the number of appeals
lodged against deportation between 2011 and 2012, which led to
an increase in the time taken to remove an individual from the
UK.
We are working on policy solutions to further increase
FNO removals. These include:
· making greater use of prosecution powers
against FNOs who do not co-operate with the deportation process
or breach bail conditions,
· working to reach agreements with Governments
of other countries to open up routes of return of their nationals,
and
· streamlining the documentation process.
The new Immigration Bill, currently before Parliament,
will ensure the courts properly reflect Parliament's view that
serious criminals should be deported unless there are very exceptional
circumstances. The Bill will also make it easier to remove people
from the UK and harder for people to prolong their stay with spurious
appeals.
ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION BACKLOG: LIVE CASEWORK
Conclusion/Recommendation 9
When the controlled archives closed the Agency
had 33,900 backlog asylum cases and 7,000 backlog immigration
cases that it needs to conclude. Most of the individuals concerned
will have waited many years to find out the result of their applications.
We reiterate our recommendation that the Home Office must now
prioritise the conclusion of their cases and work fast to give
them a swift decision. As we have pointed out in evidence sessions,
it would be easier to understand the nature of the very substantial
backlog and legacy cases if a host of different designations were
not used for the numbers involved.
Government response
Completing the review of the remaining legacy cases
as quickly as possible, whilst ensuring the work is done properly,
remains the core objective of the Older Live Cases Unit (OLCU).
OLCU - deliberately named so as to clearly describe the work of
the Unit - has bolstered its decision making capability and defined
priorities in which high harm cases and those individuals deemed
vulnerable are prioritised.
The remaining legacy cases are, by their very nature,
old and complex. There will be legacy cases where OLCU completes
a case review and decides that it is not appropriate to grant
leave but will not be able to conclude the case within a set timescale
due to external circumstances, such as individuals serving prison
sentences. It is for this reason the Home Office can commit to
review and communicate decisions on the remaining legacy cases
but cannot guarantee that all legacy cases will be concluded by
a specific date.
The report by the ICI into the handling of legacy
cases comments favourably on the progress made by OLCU and makes
positive findings with respect to the governance and management
of the remaining legacy cohort. The Home Office is focused on
reviewing each remaining legacy case in detail, to ensure the
right decision is reached in accordance with the Immigration Rules
and appropriate follow-up action taken.
A glossary of terminology associated to legacy casework
is attached to this Government response at Annex A to assist
with understanding.
NEW ASYLUM CASES
Conclusion/recommendation 10
We are concerned to see yet another increase this
quarter in the number of asylum cases waiting more than six months
for an initial decision. The time taken to process asylum applications
is an issue which we are considering in more detail in our inquiry
into asylum.
Government response
We are committed to concluding all cases as quickly
as possible. However, asylum cases are often complex - involving
some of the most vulnerable people in the immigration system -
and therefore require full and thorough consideration. Whilst
we obviously want to make decisions as quickly as possible, it
is important that we make accurate decisions and this can sometimes
take time.
While still at historically low levels, asylum intake
has been rising and this impacts on processing times. Intake in
2012 was 21,785 - a 10% increase on 2011 (19,865) and a 20% increase
on 2010 (17,916).
Whilst the number of cases awaiting initial decision
after six months increased over the reporting period, conclusions
rates within 12 months remained steady at 63% in 2012/13 (previously
56% in 2010/11, rising to 63% in 2011/12). For the third consecutive
year we have also increased conclusion rates within 36 months;
improving from 63% in 2010/11, to 70% in 2011/12, to 74% in 2012/13.
Getting to grips with these older cases, which are
often the most challenging, will allow us to focus more resource
on the beginning of the process, and make initial decisions more
quickly.
IMMIGRATION
Conclusion/recommendation 11
We were alarmed to discover in Sarah Rapson's
evidence session a further backlog of 190,000 cases in the temporary
and permanent migration pool that were never revealed to the Committee
before. The total figure for the number of cases in the backlog
has reached over half a million (502,462). Whilst we welcome this
admission from Ms Rapson and hope she is more forthcoming with
this Committee then her predecessor, it is simply unacceptable
that new backlogs are routinely revealed in Committee evidence
sessions.
Government response
As has been outlined earlier on in this response,
the Home Office has regularly reported the number of cases in
the 'temporary and permanent migration pool' to the Committee.
This is not a new backlog and has been reported on in several
previous Committee reports on the work of the former UK Border
Agency.
Conclusion/recommendation 12
Ms Rapson must make it a priority to be aware
of all the backlogs that there are, and to inform us promptly
of them all. If UK Visas and Immigration is truly committed to
full transparency and accountability they must be upfront about
the total number of cases awaiting resolution. Only when this
is done will the Home Office be better able to proportion the
appropriate resources to tackle this issue. In Rob Whiteman's
letter of 7 May 2013 to the Chair he said: "As at 31 December
2012 there were 85,833 cases in progress across temporary migration
as well as 48,857 cases not yet put on the system to give a total
of 134,690 cases in progress overall. I can confirm that as at
31 March 2012 this figure has been reduced to 105,167 cases, with
the number of uninput cases at 1,073".
taken with
Conclusion/recommendation 13
There was no mention of the number of cases in
progress across permanent migration. We are concerned that Mr
Whiteman has not been as open with the Committee as he should
have been. These figures show an increase of 18,261 cases in progress
despite the reduction in cases waiting to be put on the system.
The Committee are concerned that the organisation simply does
not have enough resources to deal with the backlog of cases. The
Home Office must clarify the total number of cases in the temporary
and permanent migration pool, exactly what these cases are and
the maximum length of time that cases in this backlog have been
outstanding. We also expect to have a complete listing for each
immigration category of how many applications have been made,
how many have not yet been processed, and how many have not been
completed within the advertised service standard.
Government response
The Home Office is committed to providing the Committee
with information openly and transparently.
Rob Whiteman's letter of 07 May 2013 included a report
on the number of cases in progress across temporary migration.
Mr. Whiteman only referred to temporary migration cases, and did
not report on the number of cases in progress across permanent
migration, because he was writing in direct response to the Committee's
letter of 23 April. In this letter from the Committee Chairman
there was only a request for an update on the Agency's progress
in tackling the build up of temporary migration cases and the
size of backlogs at that time. There was no request from the Committee
for an update on permanent migration cases. However, Rob Whiteman
had previously written to the Committee on 28 February 2013 providing
a breakdown of the number of cases outstanding across Permanent
Migration.
The Committee first raised the issue of 'uninput'
cases in the temporary and permanent migration caseload during
Rob Whiteman's evidence session on 18 December 2012. The Committee
did not specifically request this information in their data request
for Q4 (October - December 2012). However, in light of the Committee's
interest in 'uninput' cases, and in the interests of being open
and transparent, Rob Whiteman provided the details of 'uninput'
cases in his letter of 22 February 2013. This letter is reproduced
in the Committee's report for July to September 2012 at Ev43.
We would also like to address in more detail the
report's findings in relation to the backlog of in-country immigration
applications.
The report states in Paragraph 42 that 'only 10%
of Tier 1 applications were processed on time in Q4 2012, a decline
from 18% in the previous quarter'. It is important to add some
context around this dip in performance during Q4 2012. Toward
the end of 2012 the intake of low calibre Tier 1 Entrepreneur
applications rose significantly.
Jeremy Oppenheim, Director for Growth and External
Engagement, wrote to the Committee in January 2013 to inform it
of an urgent Rules change to allow us to tackle this abuse, whilst
at the same time protecting genuine entrepreneurs. It is important
that the Home Office gives proper scrutiny to these applications
to root out abuse. We are pleased to tell you that considerable
progress has been made in reducing the backlog of entrepreneur
cases and improving the service for customers.
In addition, in Paragraph 43 of the report the Committee
expresses concern that the 'Home Office is using 'backlog splitting'
to disguise the full extent of the backlog and the lack of progress
made in clearing it'.
The move to split the backlog, allowing the Home
Office to consider the more complex Human Rights cases separately,
was carried out following an increase in applications made with
intricate Human Rights issues within the 'Family' route during
2012. Due to the complexity of the claims, and a very high refusal
rate, these applications require greater scrutiny and take longer
to consider. It was agreed therefore to segment the 'Family'
work stream to more accurately reflect the disparate nature of
the applications the Home Office received, and to provide a better
service for compliant customers.
This change allowed the Home Office to deal with
a small number of outstanding, more straightforward, marriage
cases more quickly. Marriage, visit, and other non-Points Based
System routes are now at normal operational levels.
DEPARTMENTAL INFORMATION AND COOPERATION WITH PARLIAMENT
Conclusion/Recommendation 14
The Committee were deeply concerned to discover
that the spending on external consultants in Q4 had increased
by a factor of 20 on Q3, a rise from £27,000 to over £500,000.
The use of external consultants has been actively discouraged
across Whitehall as spending cuts take their toll on budgets.
We expect the Home Office to clarify why this huge increase has
occurred. We recommend that the Home Office has sensible controls
on the use of such consultants.
Government response
The Home Office has significantly reduced its historic
dependence on consultants over the last three years. There
are stringent controls in place consistent with Cabinet Office
guidelines for all consultancy engagements over £20,000.
These involve rigorous internal, Home Office and Ministerial approval.
The increase between Q3 and Q4 2012 was driven by
two consultancy assignments. In Q4, fees of £239,000 were
paid to Deloitte and £343,000 to Ernst & Young (E&Y).
Deloitte were performing a review of UK Border Agency's IT requirements,
conceived to define what UKBA needed from its technology. The
review examined the current performance of IT, captured the future
business requirements and defined the priorities for future investment
in IT that was required to support the transformation of UKBA.
This work has been used as a source in developing a new plan for
modernising immigration technology.
The consultancy support from E&Y shown against
Q4 focused on helping improve UKBA's operational effectiveness,
including benchmarking against other similar organisations and
looking at UKBA's planning and use of resources. E&Y
drew on experience of other organisations and transformation programmes,
including technical skills, such as cross-organisational benchmarking. Aligned
to E&Y recommendations, the former UKBA groups developed their
delivery planning for 2013-14, reflected that in staff objectives
and consolidated central programme and project management resources
in one place.
Conclusion/Recommendation 15
The Committee are concerned that the organisation
has missed its targets on responses to MPs queries. Constituents
and MPs simply want to know where they stand and it should not
take so long to answer such requests. Ultimately this leads to
much of the ill-feeling directed at UK Visas and Immigration.
If a more detailed and quicker response was sent constituents
and MPs would make less representations therefore reducing the
workload of the service. We have seen anecdotal evidence that
the responses given by the MPs Inquiry Line are below standard
and lacking in information. The Committee feel that resources
should be concentrated with the MP Account Managers and urge the
Home Office to reconsider the merit of the Inquiry Line. In addition,
solicitors frequently complain they are unable to get replies,
or have to wait a very long time, before receiving a response
on immigration cases. It is partly for this reason that solicitors
request Members of Parliament to write to the authorities on behalf
of constituents. Moreover, MPs themselves continue to experience
long delays in receiving replies from the UK Border Agency.
Government Response
We remain committed to improving the services we
provide to MPs through improved day to day contact, better resources
and regular MPs' events. We welcome the presence of Committee
members at such events and encourage their attendance in the future.
Performance previously has not been at a level we
or the Committee expect, mainly due to increased volumes as a
result of processing delays across some migration routes. In some
cases resource was diverted to casework to help tackle these delays,
leading to less resource available for correspondence. Whilst
not ideal, it was right that some resource was directed to solving
some of the causes of MPs' correspondence.
We have now put in place a plan and additional resources
that aim to see us return to service standards. We are also making
changes to the shape and structure of our correspondence teams
that will allow us to more easily divert resources when intake
fluctuates to help prevent any future dips in performance. We
are making sure responses are as helpful as possible by providing
more realistic information on likely decision timescales and better
follow-up action on commitments, to avoid further 'chaser' correspondence
being required.
We are also changing the way we deal with MPs' correspondence.
Each MP now has an MP Account Manager (MPAM) and over the coming
months we will move calls, emails and letters from MPs to the
MPAM teams in the regions. This will help to build better relationships
with MPs and let MPAMs get to know the issues that are important
to their local MPs. This means that there will no longer be a
MPs' Enquiry Line in its current format.
MPAMs have sufficient knowledge to identify where
a case may have been mishandled, or a mistake may have been made,
and to take appropriate action. MPAMs have the authority
to make requests for cases to be reviewed or expedited. Casework
teams have been instructed to treat such requests as if they came
direct from the Minister or a Director General's office.
In relation to correspondence from solicitors, the
former UK Border Agency received large volumes of customer correspondence.
We are currently looking at how we can use improved IT and handling
processes to better respond to correspondence from solicitors
and our customers.
| 
