House of Commons - The work of the UK Border Agency (October-December 2012)

The work of the UK Border Agency (October-December 2012) - Home Affairs Committee Contents

2 The abolition of the UKBA

2. On 23 May 2006, the new Home Secretary, Rt Hon John Reid MP, told our predecessor Committee:

I want to be straight with the Committee today and honest with you because I believe that [...] in the wake of the problems of mass migration that we have been facing our system is not fit for purpose. It is inadequate in terms of its scope; it is inadequate in terms of its information technology, leadership, management, systems and processes.[1]

Conscious, perhaps, of the fact that his predecessor, Charles Clarke, had resigned only a month beforehand over the Home Office's failure to deport foreign national offenders, the Home Secretary did not mince his words. He described the frustration of working with a paper-based system from "another age", when the necessary technology-based system "seems to be on an horizon that never gets any nearer". He said that he had initiated an audit of performance, weak services, leaderships and skills, and fragmentation in silos across the Department. He said that the Department was not "intrinsically dysfunctional, in the sense that it is incapable of being led in a coherent fashion" but that there were serious weaknesses in its management structures and information flows.[2]

3. The outcome was the establishment of the UK Border Agency, which attained full agency status in 2009, following the statutory transfer of the border functions of HM Revenue and Customs to the Secretary of State, which allowed immigration and customs functions to be merged at the border.[3]However, the establishment of the Agency did not prove to be the panacea that Dr Reid might have hoped. It continued to perform poorly in several areas, such as tackling the asylum and immigration backlog, and dealing with foreign national offenders when they are released from prison, and processing in-country visa renewals.[4]It is not just this Committee which has been critical of the Agency: John Vine CBE QPM, the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, has frequently highlighted problems with the Agency, as has the Parliamentary Ombudsman, who noted that almost two-thirds of complaints that had to be sent back to organisations in 2011-12 were about the Agency.[5]

4. In November 2011, it emerged that differences of understanding between Ministers and senior UKBA officials about the precise scope of a pilot of risk-led border controls had led to some passport checks being waived without Ministerial approval. In response to this, the Home Secretary announced the creation of a new Border Force, taking the border control function out of the UKBA.[6] Whereas this remedy was presented as addressing specific problems with entry checks at the border, the episode called into question the whole issue of management and Ministerial oversight of the Agency.[7]

5. It was following the publication of our last Report on the Agency that matters came to a head. HM Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration had found that this Committee had consistently been supplied with misleading information about the immigration and asylum backlogs.[8] Mr Vine's oral evidence to us was remarkably consistent with Dr Reid's evidence to our predecessors six years previously—there was a lack of transparency and "shockingly poor" customer service, and the Agency was divided into isolated "silos". He declined to say, when prompted, that the Agency was fit for purpose.[9] However, it does demonstrate how little changes in these matters, whichever government is in office.

6. The day after our Report was published, the Home Secretary announced that the UK Border Agency was to be abolished. She told the House that

the performance of what remains of UKBA is still not good enough. The Agency struggles with the volume of its casework, which has led to historical backlogs running into the hundreds of thousands; the number of illegal immigrants removed does not keep up with the number of people who are here illegally; and while the visa operation is internationally competitive, it could and should get better still. The Select Committee on Home Affairs has published many critical reports about UKBA's performance. As I have said to the House before, the agency has been a troubled organisation since it was formed in 2008, and its performance is not good enough.[10]

7. We took evidence immediately after the statement from Mark Sedwill, the new Home Office Permanent Secretary; Rob Whiteman, the Agency's Chief Executive; and Simon Hayes, acting Head of its International Directorate. Mr Sedwill was realistic about the limited extent to which a change of governance arrangements would, in and of itself, raise performance. Rather, it was a way of establishing the "right platform" to tackle the long-standing performance problems.[11] They were rather vague about the way in which the decision to abolish the Agency had been arrived at but insisted that the decision to abolish it had been carefully planned over some time. However, we note that just five days before the announcement was made, there was a Written Ministerial Statement from the Immigration Minister, which stated

I am confident that these measures represent the start of a period of further improvement that will leave the UK Border Agency on the sure footing necessary to continue to deliver a safe and efficient immigration system.[12]

We also note that the Independent Inspector does not seem to have been given advance warning of this major change.[13]

8. The intention behind the move is to provide closer Ministerial oversight of the Agency, but also to further divide its functions into two separate units: a high-volume, customer-focused immigration service that makes high-quality decisions about who comes here, with a culture of customer satisfaction for business-people and visitors who want to come here legally; and an organisation that has law enforcement at its heart and deals robustly with those who break our immigration laws.

9. Of the division of functions, the Home Secretary made clear to the House that the organisation had suffered from a lack of accountability to Ministers

Two smaller entities will also mean greater transparency and accountability, and that brings me to the second change I intend to make. UKBA was given agency status in order to keep its work at an arm's length from Ministers—that was wrong. It created a closed, secretive and defensive culture. So I can tell the House that the new entities will not have agency status and will sit in the Home Office, reporting to Ministers.

10. This came as no surprise to the Committee who had regularly uncovered evidence of backlogs and other information being withheld deliberately from our oversight since 2006. The 'Q3 Report Into the work of the UK Border Agency (July-Sept 2012)', published on the 25 March 2013, one day before the abolition of the Agency, made a number of recommendations aimed at improving accountability and transparency in the organisation and in particular welcomed the establishment of the Performance and Compliance Unit to improve reliability of data.

11. However, the Committee are concerned about the length of time it has taken to establish this unit. We are yet to receive any information about the strategic aims, objectives and outcomes of the unit, nor timescales for its delivery. If the Home Office are to improve transparency as outlined by the Home Secretary, then the creation of this unit must be a priority. The Home Office must outline when it expects this unit to be operational and describe its core functions.

12. The original functions of the UK Border Agency are now divided between four Home office units:

a) Border Force, a law enforcement command within the Home Office which carries out immigration and customs controls for people and goods entering the UK;[14]

b) UK Visas and Immigration, handling migration casework and customer contact, visas, asylum casework, appeals, and business, growth and premium services;

c) Immigration Enforcement, which deals with removals and detention, operational intelligence, foreign national offenders and immigration crime; and

d) Operational Systems Transformation, which is responsible for modernising immigration technology; identity and data integrity; performance, assurance and compliance; business strategy, analysis, design and change; strategic risks and analysis; external engagement on growth; and joint working across the immigration system.[15]

13. The division of the Agency as was into four separate units has raised concerns about the appropriateness of the salary scale for the senior directors. The remuneration bill for senior directors has quadrupled to an estimated £700,000. The Committee is concerned about the role of Rob Whiteman. The organisation he was in charge of has been reduced in size by 75% in just over a year, yet his salary still remains at £175,000 per annum. It should be borne in mind that this is £32,500 more than the Prime Minister's salary.[16] The Home Office must clarify what Mr Whiteman's new roles and responsibilities are.

14. As the Home Secretary made her announcement, the Permanent Secretary Mark Sedwill sent a message to staff reassuring them that: "Most of us will still be doing the same job in the same place with the same colleagues for the same boss".[17]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.

15. 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".

16. 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.

17. 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.

1 Home Affairs Committee, Fifth Report of Session 2005-06, Immigration Control, HC 775-III (Oral and additional written evidence), Q 866 Back

2 Ibid,. QQ 866-967 Back

3 Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 Back

4 A list of the Committee's 14 Reports on the UK Border Agency from its inception to its abolition is annexed to this Report. Back

5 Responsive and Accountable? The Ombudsman's review of complaint handling by government departments and public organisations 2011-12 (HC 799, Session 2012-13), p. 20 Back

6 HC Deb, 7 November 2011, col. 44 Back

7 See Home Affairs Committee, Seventeenth Report of Session 2010-12, UK Border Controls, HC 1647 Back

8 See, for example, An inspection of the UK Border Agency's handling of legacy asylum and migration cases (HMCIBI, November 2012) Back

9 Home Affairs Committee, Fourteenth Report of Session 2012-13 The work of the UK Border Agency (July-September 2012), HC 792, Ev 1-7. Back

10 HC Deb, 26 March 2013, col. 1500 Back

11 Q 19 Back

12 HC Deb, 21 March 2013, cols. 55-56WS Back