Conclusions and recommendations
The abolition of the UKBA
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.
(Paragraph 14)
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".
(Paragraph 15)
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.
(Paragraph 16)
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.
(Paragraph 17)
Entry clearance in the Gulf: conclusions
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.
(Paragraph 33)
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.
(Paragraph 36)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.
(Paragraph 37)
Ex-Foreign National offenders
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 nationalex-offendersliving 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.
(Paragraph 39)
Asylum and immigration backlog: live casework
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.
(Paragraph 40)
New asylum cases
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 issuewhichwe are considering in more detail in our inquiry into asylum.
(Paragraph 41)
Immigration
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.
(Paragraph 44)
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".
(Paragraph 45)
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.
(Paragraph 46)
Departmental information and cooperation with
Parliament
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.
(Paragraph 47)
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.
(Paragraph 48)
| 
