Home Affairs Committee
Oral evidence: The work of the Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, HC 362
Tuesday 8 December 2015
Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 8 December 2015
Members present: Keith Vaz (Chair); Victoria Atkins, Mr David Burrowes, Nusrat Ghani, Mr Ranil Jayawardena, Tim Loughton, Stuart C. McDonald, Naz Shah, Mr Chuka Umunna, Mr David Winnick.
In the absence of the Chair, Tim Loughton was called to the Chair.
Questions 1 - 69
Witness: David Bolt, Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, gave evidence.
Q1 Chair: Mr Bolt, first of all, on behalf of the Committee can I congratulate you as the Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration?
David Bolt: Thank you.
Chair: Can I declare a further interest, that my wife is an immigration solicitor working in London?
Mr Bolt, you have now been in office since 1 May so you have completed 25% of your term.
David Bolt: Indeed.
Q2 Chair: How many reports have you published in the time since you were appointed to date?
David Bolt: There have been six reports published since I was appointed.
Q3 Chair: Are these your reports or are they reports that your predecessor left that were not completed?
David Bolt: They were commissioned by my predecessor, they were not completed when I arrived so I have had a hand in all of them.
Q4 Chair: Looking at your previous history, obviously you worked for MI5 and you were the Chief Executive of the International Federation of Spirits Producers.
David Bolt: Yes.
Chair: You have no experience with immigration work, have you?
David Bolt: I have some experience from my time at SOCA. I was the lead in SOCA for organised immigration crime and was involved with the setting-up of the UK Human Trafficking Centre, but other than that, no.
Q5 Chair: What do you make of the report published by the National Audit Office last week about the e-borders programme?
David Bolt: It is a fairly damning report. Of course, there have been a number of reports on e-borders over its long history, including one by my Inspectorate at the end of 2012 and beginning of 2013. It picks up on a number of points that were already familiar to us as the Inspectorate.
One of the key issues in it that will interest me as I go forward in inspections is that there is going to be an increasing reliance on technology to assist the Border Force. On the basis of the e-borders programme, of course, that challenge has not been handled perhaps as well as it needs to be. Looking forwards and looking particularly at Sir Charles Montgomery’s ambitions with Border Force to be more technology-reliant, I will want to be involved in looking at some of those issues as well through my inspections.
Q6 Chair: Do the issues concerning the Warnings Index and watchlist concern you? Are you planning to do any reports into that?
David Bolt: Yes. The Heathrow report, which I am sure the Committee has seen, which came out this year, after my arrival, did touch on one aspect of the Warnings Index. It noted that Border Force was not amending the records in the Warning Index to remove—
Q7 Chair: It breaks down twice a week, does it not?
David Bolt: Sorry. In terms of its technical reliability—
Q8 Chair: Yes. That is the problem, is it not? It breaks down.
David Bolt: Yes. Sorry. It does, yes, and the NAO report did point to that.
Q9 Chair: Are you planning to look into this?
David Bolt: As I say, we did look at it when we looked at Heathrow. We identified then that were problems not just with its technical reliability but also with its maintenance in terms of the data that are kept on the Index and the failure to clean up those data so that they are reliable.
Q10 Chair: You wrote to this Committee and you said you wanted “a more low-key approach”.
David Bolt: Yes.
Chair: Your very words. We were big fans of John Vine. We liked his reports because it saved us having to do more reports on immigration, and that of course was his job. What was wrong with his approach compared with what you plan to do? You have been there since 1 May and we have not really heard much about what you have done so far. You have been so low-key you are completely off our radar.
David Bolt: I am looking for the reports to speak for themselves.
Chair: They have not so far.
David Bolt: They have been published. The fact that others have not picked on them I do not control. The fact that particularly the press has not followed up on them, other than in relation to the point around Heathrow and the customs checks, is not something I have control over.
Q11 Chair: You also talked about rebuilding relations with the Home Office. We will come on to your independence later on but is that really your job, to go around being nice to the Home Office?
David Bolt: It is not a question of being nice. There was a problem towards the end of my predecessor’s time. Let me pay tribute to John: I think John did a fantastic job in setting up the Inspectorate, in setting up its processes, getting it up and running and delivering some excellent reports over a period of six years. Towards the end of the time that John was in post, there was something of a breakdown of relations with the Home Office and some mistrust built up on both sides.
Q12 Chair: He was the inspector inspecting the Home Office. He is not there to have cups of tea and biscuits with them.
David Bolt: Neither do I, Chair.
Chair: He is there to produce reports. You are telling us there was a lack of trust between John Vine and the Home Office? Is that what you are telling us?
David Bolt: I think there was a breakdown towards the end of John’s period in office.
Q13 Chair: Who told you that?
David Bolt: I could see that from some of the coverage that there was in the media of John’s concerns about his independence and then his resignation. I also heard about it from the Home Office, and I heard about it from—
Chair: They have been complaining about the previous inspector?
David Bolt: —my own staff.
Q14 Chair: Right. They were all complaining that there was a breakdown of trust. You are there to restore relations with the Home Office in a low-key way?
David Bolt: It is important to have a good working relationship with the Home Office. The difficulty of getting my recommendations to be accepted and implemented is increased if there is not a good working relationship.
Chair: There has been no problem in the past because we have always tried to make sure those recommendations were implemented.
Q15 Tim Loughton: Mr Bolt, the recent NAO report, a comparison between the five Inspectorates involved with the Home Office and Justice, makes interesting observations. Which observations did you take note of more than others?
David Bolt: I just touched on the point about recommendations and the implementation of recommendations. One of the points that was made in the report about monitoring the implementation of recommendations was something that struck me. That is an issue for me. How do I do that with what is a very small Inspectorate? How do I manage to check that the Home Office has in fact implemented recommendations that I have made and it has accepted? That was one issue.
There is a very good point made in the NAO report about Inspectorates working more closely together, sharing good practice and sharing training, and I have had some discussions with the Prisons Inspectorate and with HMIC to see what we can do in that regard.
There was a point made about thematic work and how pressure on resources had reduced the ability to cover themes within reports, and I have been giving some thought to how in my Inspectorate we might do something about that issue.
Q16 Tim Loughton: Can I ask on the collaborative working, which is of particular interest to me, is there anything that you have initiated in terms of working with those other four, at least, Inspectorates about showing best practice and setting up protocols, or are you still all working in silos?
David Bolt: I have been with HMIP, the Prisons Inspectorate, on a visit to Harmondsworth in order to observe their process, and had a couple of meetings with Nick Hardwick to talk to him about what we might do together. I have had a number of meetings with HMIC and I am doing a piece of work at the moment that is looking at what are commonly called “lorry drops”, which I am doing in conjunction with HMIC, although in fact they are not able to resource it.
Q17 Tim Loughton: What do you think the scope for joint inspections is?
David Bolt: Obviously there is a question of remit and making sure that the remits are appropriate to the topic of the inspections, but once that point is covered there is considerable scope for me to work with other Inspectorates, particularly Prisons because of the detention estate.
Q18 Tim Loughton: What is being done about it?
David Bolt: As I say, I have had discussions with the Inspectorate. We are looking at whether or not there is some joint work we can do. In particular for detention I discovered when I went to Harmondsworth that detainees, when prisons inspectors are in the estate, are approaching the inspectors with issues about their cases as opposed to the detention facilities, which is more properly dealt with by my Inspectorate.
Q19 Tim Loughton: The reason I ask is I dealt with exactly this problem with children’s services. I got five Inspectorates together around a table, which had never happened before—Ofsted, CQC, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and so on—to say, “Why can’t we have cross-disciplinary inspection of things like children’s services rather than a children’s services department one week having Ofsted in, the next month having CQC in and so on?” Added to which, the scrutiny of a different organisation looking at things differently might throw up different constructive criticisms or otherwise. I was told that could not possibly happen for all sorts of reasons. Eventually now it is happening. I am hearing the same sort of reasons why it may be difficult rather than, “That would be a fantastic idea. How can we make it happen?” There is huge scope here and it starts with making sure that your people are training alongside the other Inspectorates so that they are singing from the same hymn book in the first place.
David Bolt: I agree with you that cross-training is important and, as the NAO report points out, there are some disciplines that are common to inspection that would be appropriate to be trained across a number of Inspectorates. There is a question of ensuring that if we are going to work together, we are looking at something that is within the competence of those Inspectorates that are trying to work together. As I have said, there is some work to be done around the detention estate and individuals in detention and, as I have explained, I am looking at lorry drops to look at how the police and immigration enforcement are working together, which is of interest to HMIC. There may be other areas where we could do some of those sorts of things.
Q20 Tim Loughton: By this time next year, you could come back to us to say there has been certain progress in joint inspections or shared use of best practice across those Inspectorates? Is there a timetable and a piece of work going ahead to achieve that?
David Bolt: I would expect us to be able to say something like that by certainly this time next year, yes.
Chair: Mr Bolt, I am going to have to go to the Chamber because there is a debate that is of direct relevance to the work of this Committee and concerns us. Mr Loughton will take the chair.
Q21 Nusrat Ghani: Mr Bolt, you talked about a number of reports that you have published that possibly do not get a huge amount of coverage but I have found one of your reports on domestic violence. Can I just draw your attention to that?
David Bolt: Yes, of course.
Q22 Nusrat Ghani: You devoted a large section of your report dealing with settlement casework of domestic violence, where applicants’ relationships have broken down, and you say that you are satisfied that all the cases you looked at were decided in a justifiable way and that you do not have anything more to add to that framework. My concern is that the evidence you are taking is only in written form. Is that correct?
David Bolt: There were discussions with a number of stakeholder groups as well as the written submissions.
Q23 Nusrat Ghani: So you are only taking written evidence down?
David Bolt: It is our normal practice to write out to stakeholders to invite them to write with evidence, yes.
Q24 Nusrat Ghani: My concern is if there was an individual who was brought over into this country to marry a British citizen in an arranged or forced marriage, how could they share their story with you outside of the written evidence that would have to be produced? They are incredibly vulnerable people. They would not have had access to any services outside their household. How is their case being heard?
David Bolt: Typically, we have not in the past—and did not in this inspection—spoken to the individuals. We have spoken to agencies or groups who have represented those individuals. We have spoken to a number of women’s groups. I have a group that is helping me in particular in looking at refugee and asylum issues that has a number of third-sector representatives on it. It is through those groups and it is through groups like the Immigration Law Practitioners Association that we gather our evidence, rather than directly from the individuals.
Q25 Nusrat Ghani: Will every male or female whose relationship breaks down and who shows that they might have had some involvement in forced marriage have a representative that you will have spoken to, or will it just be paperwork that you are dealing with?
David Bolt: As I say, the principal way in which we gather the evidence is to write out and ask for submissions, having explained what the scope of the inspection is and inviting submissions for that inspection. But we also talk to—
Q26 Nusrat Ghani: Who writes the submissions?
David Bolt: You mean the ones that come back?
Nusrat Ghani: Yes.
David Bolt: The agencies that I mentioned.
Q27 Nusrat Ghani: If they do not have a good understanding of the English language, who helps them write that submission? Will it be the agency that individual works with? Will they be on their own as to finding some support?
David Bolt: I do not know the detail, I am afraid, of who writes on behalf of the groups that return the submissions to us, so, I am sorry, I cannot answer that.
Q28 Nusrat Ghani: I have some concern that these people might not be fully represented. Is there any way you could look at that again at all, or not?
David Bolt: I have, in fact, since the publication of the report, had further representations from some groups on that issue. I attended the annual general meeting of the Immigration Law Practitioners Association a couple of weeks ago and at that meeting talked to a couple of representatives who wanted to talk again about some of the issues to do with domestic violence. I invited them to come in and do that.
Q29 Nusrat Ghani: I do not want to take any more time. Could you just let us know which groups you spoke to and what they recommended?
David Bolt: Certainly. Can I write to you?
Nusrat Ghani: Yes, please. Thank you so much.
Tim Loughton: That would be helpful, Mr Bolt. Thank you very much.
Q30 Mr Umunna: Your predecessor told this Committee in June of 2014 that the time between report submissions and publication was increasing and this risked evidence gathered becoming dated and losing its relevance. Since then, the Home Secretary has committed to publish reports within eight weeks of their submission.
David Bolt: That is right.
Q31 Mr Umunna: How long on average does it take in respect of the reports that you have produced, albeit you are fairly new in post? What time does it take, notwithstanding this eight-week commitment by the Home Secretary? How long is it before your reports are published once they have been submitted?
Chair: Mr Bolt?
David Bolt: Sorry, I did not—
Q32 Chair: Mr Bolt, your answer?
David Bolt: Yes. Of the reports that I have been produced since I have been in post—there have been six—four of them were produced within the eight-week timescale. Two of them exceeded the eight-week timescale but that was once the summer recess had kicked in. One of the discussions that I have had with the Home Office in the last few weeks has been to ensure that the recess, whether it is the summer recess or other recesses, does not stop the clock on the eight weeks and that the eight weeks is in real time. In the case of the reports, apart from those two where, as I say, the summer recess affected the length of time, all of the others have been published within that period. Typically six to eight weeks.
Q33 Mr Umunna: Do you believe that publication between six and eight weeks compromises the relevance of the reports?
David Bolt: The timing of the reports is important and the longer that is left between the report being completed and its publication, the less relevance there will be. But there are other aspects of that whole timescale that need to be addressed, not just the point after it has been delivered to the Home Secretary. I have shortened the whole process significantly—
Q34 Mr Umunna: Sorry, I do not have that long. I asked quite a straight question. Does the timeframe of between six to eight weeks between submission and publication compromise the relevance of your reports?
David Bolt: I do not believe it does significantly, no.
Q35 Mr Umunna: Can I just ask you about the power of the Home Secretary to redact parts of your reports?
David Bolt: Yes.
Mr Umunna: Don’t you think you are perfectly capable yourself of determining whether or not parts of your report need to be redacted, for example because they may compromise national security? Why on earth should the Home Secretary have the power to redact your reports?
David Bolt: That is the legislation.
Q36 Mr Umunna: I am asking you why the Home Secretary should have that power. Don’t you feel that you are perfectly capable of determining whether your reports need to be redacted or not? Why should the Home Secretary redact your reports?
David Bolt: I do believe that I am able to make a judgment on national security—I have a background that would enable me to do that—but, as I say, the legislation is such that it is the Home Secretary’s prerogative to be able to do so. She has not done so in the time that I have been in post and I believe did so only four times in the period of the last two or three years. It is not something that is common.
Q37 Mr Umunna: In respect of the previous incidents before you came to post, what were the reasons cited for the redactions?
David Bolt: I think the only reason that can be cited is national security.
Q38 Mr Umunna: That is the only one?
David Bolt: I believe so, yes.
Q39 Mr Umunna: Does the Home Secretary not have a broader discretion to exercise the power as they see fit?
David Bolt: As I say, I have no experience of the Home Secretary seeking to redact anything in my report so I cannot speak from experience. My understanding of her power is that it relates to national security issues.
Q40 Mr Umunna: In terms of your independence, do you believe that your independence is fully respected? Has that been your experience since you have taken up your role?
David Bolt: It certainly has been to date, yes.
Q41 Mr Winnick: First of all, I was pleased to hear your feelings that John Vine had carried out his job, as I understand it, if I can put words into your mouth, with complete integrity.
David Bolt: Absolutely.
Q42 Mr Winnick: Yes. You accept that. I am a little bit surprised, Mr Bolt, if I could put it that way, because I have looked at the letter that you sent to the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. You wanted a good relationship with the Home Office, obviously, based on trust and mutual respect, which would be made more difficult—and I quote now—“If the Home Office believed the Inspectorate was concerned with point-scoring and self-promotion”. Inevitably, that would seem to be a point being made about your predecessor. What do you say to that, Mr Bolt?
David Bolt: I was reflecting the conversations that I had with the Home Office on the issue. They believed that was the case. I was not in a position at the time to be able to make a judgment.
Q43 Mr Winnick: Why say it? There was only one predecessor—I think I am right—before you.
David Bolt: Yes.
Q44 Mr Winnick: “Point-scoring and self-promotion” inevitably, I would have thought, would be a reference to your predecessor.
David Bolt: As I say, I was not reflecting my view, I was reflecting the view that had been stated to me.
Q45 Mr Winnick: I am sure we all appreciate your modesty when you say that you have not responded to requests for television or radio interviews, though these have been infrequent. A low profile is to be appreciated in some instances—the Chair of this Committee likewise could be considered low-profile—but your background was in security. Reference was made earlier to being in MI5 for some quarter of a century.
David Bolt: Yes.
Mr Winnick: Would it be possible that to some extent, the work that you carry out—I am not questioning in any way your integrity, I want to make that absolutely clear, but is there not a possibility that your background—perfectly honourable, no one would say otherwise—may make you more inclined to take the sort of position that you are taking about being low-profile and not eager to publicise what you are doing?
Chair: Old habits die hard, Mr Bolt, is what he is asking.
David Bolt: Yes. I suppose that that might be something that is instinctive with me, having spent such a long time in that sort of work, but in my role before this one I worked in industry for five years where I did have a public profile. It is not something that I would avoid if I thought it was appropriate. I certainly thought it was appropriate in starting out in this role to take a lower profile in order to ensure that I did establish the right working relationship with the Home Office at the outset.
Q46 Mr Winnick: If you come across cases where you believe it is in the public interest that it should be known, including the media and the rest, would you have any hesitation?
David Bolt: No, of course not. No.
Q47 Mr Winnick: Despite your desire to have a good working relationship with the Home Office, and it may well irritate them if you did that?
David Bolt: It is not my job not to irritate them. I am perfectly prepared to be challenging and, if necessary, irritating. I wanted to establish from the outset a good working relationship with them that was based on the fact that they could trust that what I produced would be properly evidence-based and that it would be constructive, in terms of trying to ensure that it led to improvement.
Q48 Mr Winnick: You would go public in the way that I have indicated if necessary?
David Bolt: Absolutely, if necessary, yes.
Chair: Thank you. Colleagues, we do need to make some progress. We are running a little late.
Q49 Mr Burrowes: Maybe this is the opportunity to come out of the shadows. Concerning recommendations in reports published since May 2015, how many of those have not been accepted by the Government?
David Bolt: Only one. There have been three that have been only partially accepted but one that has been rejected.
Q50 Mr Burrowes: Let us just go for that particular one, recommendation 11, in “An Inspection of Settlement Casework”. This is something that certainly comes across in my constituency, the routine and straightforward postal applications for settlement approval and rejection. Your recommendation to introduce shorter service standards was not accepted. How are you going to be satisfied with what the Government says is their response, which is their “system which clearly differentiates between straightforward and more complex applications at the point of application and ensures that all appropriate checks and enquiries are completed in a timely manner”? Are you satisfied that they have answered the basis of your recommendation?
David Bolt: No, not entirely. I understand the reasons for the response that I received—I have discussed that with the relevant Director General in the Home Office and I understand her reasons—but there is an issue about service standards. In particular, the service standards are trying to do two things: they are trying to give a genuine service to the public, to declare what level of service can be expected, and they are also there to try to drive performance internally within the Department. My concern is that in this instance it did not do either of those things very well and that was what I was challenging.
Q51 Mr Burrowes: When do you think they are going to provide this clearer application process and a system that is going to enable them to meet your concerns?
David Bolt: In that particular instance, it is clear from the response that there is no intention to—
Q52 Mr Burrowes: No, but they think they can do it in another way and meet the basic concerns. You are saying they have not met it yet.
David Bolt: As I say, I think in that particular instance that issue is now complete. For me, it is a case of going—
Q53 Mr Burrowes: The issue is not complete. I know there are many cases—and you will know because you say they have not entirely met your concerns—where those straightforward applications are not being dealt with, either a shorter service standard or a decent service standard, whatever one calls it. It is letting down members of the public for straightforward applications. What are you going to be doing about it to make sure that they sort it out?
David Bolt: I am not sure I can do anything about it. All I am able to do is to recommend. If the recommendations are not accepted, I have to move on. In that particular instance I will have the opportunity to go back to the question at some point but it is not something that is in my immediate plan.
The more general point about service standards and whether the service standards are achieving those two things that I described will be something that I can return to in future inspections, but that particular issue is now effectively closed until such time as I have another opportunity to go back. I cannot force the Home Office to accept my—
Q54 Mr Burrowes: Do you track your recommendations, whether those have been followed through?
David Bolt: Yes.
Q55 Mr Burrowes: The ones that have been accepted, you track those ones down?
David Bolt: The ones that have been accepted? I work with the internal audit team within the Home Office, who do track that on my behalf. Also of course if I go back to an issue I will look again to see that the things that have been recommended previously—
Q56 Mr Burrowes: That is fine, but doesn’t it make sense also to track the ones that they do not accept? You are still maintaining your position that they have not done enough.
David Bolt: I cannot track their actions in relation to those. What I can do is to go back and inspect in that area again and see whether there has been any change. In that particular instance the Home Office would argue—as I believe they have—that they are operating to as tight as a timescale as they believe is reasonable. I will have the opportunity at some point to go back and check that they are indeed sticking to that but also to make the point again, if I believe it is necessary, that I believe the service standard could be tightened.
Chair: Thank you. Mr Jayawardena is going to raise the issue of Heathrow, and then Mr McDonald.
Q57 Mr Jayawardena: Yes, Heathrow and then one other point if I may. Are you satisfied that there have been changes at Heathrow after your report in August that highlighted that customs desks are being unmanned? Do you agree with the Security Minister that security at large and small airports has to all be considered in the round?
David Bolt: I have not been back to Heathrow to check whether or not there has been a change since the recommendations so I cannot comment on that. The recommendations were accepted and so therefore it is a matter for the Home Office and for Border Force to make those changes, and for internal audit on my behalf at my moment to check that that has been done. I will at some point inevitably go back to Heathrow to check again. Heathrow being such a major operation, it is something that the Inspectorate will return to.
On the issue of border control, border checks, the Security Minister said a couple of weeks ago when he was attending this Committee and also Sir Charles of the Border Force—
Chair: Sir Charles Montgomery.
David Bolt: —said last week that major airports were at a higher level of security than smaller airports and sea ports. That is certainly something that is borne out by the Inspectorate’s work. I welcome the comments that were being made by the Minister about reviewing some of the security measures at particularly smaller airports and sea ports, which pre-empts a little a report that is currently with the Home Secretary that will be published early in the new year.
Q58 Chair: Can I ask specifically on that, before Mr Jayawardena comes back, whether you are aware that the Home Office is currently carrying out a review of small airports and small ports, because not all of the Home Office are?
David Bolt: I was not aware of that until I heard the Minister tell this Committee.
Q59 Chair: The Minister may need to revisit that undertaking, in your view?
David Bolt: I cannot comment.
Chair: You are not aware. Very good. Sorry, Mr Jayawardena.
Mr Jayawardena: Not a problem at all. If I can turn to a slightly different issue with people coming to this country—
Q60 Mr Burrowes: Can I just pick on the Heathrow thing briefly before that? Do you mind? In terms of the report about the lack of customs checks, did those planes also involve those coming from Turkey? Was that also involved in the concern about the lack of checks? This is Terminal 5.
David Bolt: Yes. I am afraid I do not have the detail of exactly which flights were not checked. The report refers to “high-risk flights”, I think.
Q61 Mr Burrowes: Yes. It was not clear.
David Bolt: I would have to go back to the inspectors and check on the details. I can do so.
Q62 Mr Burrowes: Turkey is obviously a particular topical interest and so it would be very useful to know that.
David Bolt: Yes, certainly.
Chair: Could we have that information?
David Bolt: I can certainly do that.
Chair: We are due to go to Turkey. In fact, we were meant to be there last week but had to delay it. Mr Jayawardena, you have the floor.
Q63 Mr Jayawardena: The third time of asking. Let me try again. I am not opining on these statistics—to begin with, anyway—but overall the grant rate for asylum cases in the year ending September 2015 increased to 41%. However, the grant rate for Eritreans fell from 84% to 61% based on Home Office advice that Eritrean asylum-seekers can now safely go home. I might well agree with this advice but it could be argued that judges are unimpressed with the quality of Home Office decisions in Eritrean cases because the success rate on appeal rose from 37% to 72%. That is compared to an overall average of allowed appeals that stood at 33%.
Such a proportion of appeals that overturn decisions must have entailed substantial expense to the taxpayer, uncertainty to the individuals and tied up the legal system as well. Might it be worth revisiting how such advice can be strengthened in the future and how we can also protect against judicial activism of this kind? Is that something that you are going to look at in ensuring that the system is more robust going forward?
Chair: Mr Bolt, a shorter answer than the question would be appreciated.
Mr Jayawardena: I thought, given it took three tries to ask, I would make the most of it.
David Bolt: I will try. Specifically on Eritrea, I have a group led by an academic and principally made up of academics that looks at the country of origin advice that the Home Office uses and the case workers in the Home Office use to make their decisions. We have, in the last few weeks, produced a piece on Eritrea to compare with the Home Office advice on Eritrea. It is fair to say that there is some difference of a view between the group that works on my behalf and the Home Office on some of those aspects of whether or not it is safe to return individuals to Eritrea. That issue is still live. We are still working on that.
On the more general point, yes, clearly the refusal rate, and particularly how that then follows through into judicial review and what judges find, is something that I am interested in looking at. I have on the group that I mentioned an immigration appeal judge and it is something that I was hoping I might explore further with him.
Q64 Mr Jayawardena: In relation to that group, would you not agree that as the Independent Chief Inspector it is not your job to devise policy and therefore you should be looking at how policy that is legitimately determined by Parliament and by Government is properly introduced and enforced, so that judges are not creating policy on behalf of the public?
David Bolt: Absolutely, yes. The group does not address policy. It is looking at the situation in the countries that it looks at. In the case of Eritrea, it was looking at the treatment of individuals—
Q65 Mr Jayawardena: With respect, my point is: is it not true that really what you should be doing is looking at what the Home Office is doing? The advice that they have arrived at is their job and your job is to opine on how it is that so many cases are being overturned by judges and, in line with what you said about having a good working relationship, helping them to ensure their decisions, legitimately made on behalf of the people, are enforced.
David Bolt: That is absolutely the case. I do, however, have a responsibility to ensure that individuals who have been denied asylum or denied a visa and do not have the right of appeal have been treated in a fair and consistent manner. That is also part of the role. You are quite correct I am not there to challenge policy, I am there to ensure consistency and fairness so I do need to look at those issues as well.
Q66 Mr Jayawardena: Will you be looking to advise the Home Office, in a subsequent report, how this advice can be tightened up and strengthened going forward so that there is less challenge in the future, which is to the benefit of providing certainty to individuals but also reducing the costs to the system?
David Bolt: Absolutely, yes.
Q67 Stuart C. McDonald: We had this report from the Parliamentary and Health Ombudsman, which ties in various other findings that other organisations have made. It decided that Home Office decision-making is pretty poor.
David Bolt: Yes.
Stuart C. McDonald: It is not that we want to see poor Home Office decisions enforced. Far from it. We need to see Home Office decisions improved. There is a legitimate question about having some sort of review process for these decisions.
David Bolt: Yes. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman report, of course, was looking at complaints and the handling of complaints. Obviously there is a connection between complaints and decision-making but it was looking specifically at the handling of complaints by individuals who felt that they had been treated poorly either through the service that they had received or through the decisions that they had received.
My team has been looking at complaints handling within the Home Office. The report is currently with the Home Office to check factual accuracy and it will be coming out early in the new year. I cannot discuss the detail of that report in advance of that, but you will see that it is a fairly tough report about the way in which the Home Office is currently handling complaints and makes several recommendations about how that must be tightened up in order to ensure proper investigation, fair handling, proper responses and a speeding-up of that whole process.
Q68 Stuart C. McDonald: Very briefly, your organisation spent three-quarters of last year engaged in inspecting the complaints handling process but given that we have this Ombudsman that does consider the complaints process, was that really the best use of the Inspectorate’s time?
David Bolt: We were looking more at the process. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman was looking at individual cases particularly and looked at, I think, 158 cases all together. We looked at a rather larger set of issues and looked across the way in which they were being handled by Border Force, immigration enforcement, UKVI and also how MPs’ correspondence was being held. We were able to go in at a much deeper level than the PHSO was able to.
Q69 Chair: Mr Bolt, thank you very much. I am sorry we have run slightly over. Could we ask if the bits of evidence you have offered to provide in writing could be provided by next Friday? That would be very helpful. We are very grateful for your evidence this afternoon. Thank you.
Oral evidence: The work of the Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, HC 362 14