The resignation of the man in charge of immigration and borders is further evidence of problems at the Home Office.
The resignation of the man in charge of immigration and borders is further evidence of problems at the Home Office
Today John Vine, the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration has announced his resignation. For those who work on immigration policy, it is surprising he has lasted so long. Over the last two years he has sounded increasingly frustrated by failures of the government to act on his recommendations.
His exit is further evidence of on-going and wider problems in the Home Office.
The last Labour government set up role of the chief inspector and the legal framework for this post was outlined in the UK Borders Act 2007. John Vine, formerly chief constable of Tayside, came into post in 2008. He reports to the home secretary who sets his work priorities, but the chief inspector can inspect outside these areas.
Over the last six years, John Vine and his 30 staff have carried out inspections and spot-checks in the UK and overseas. They have looked at issues such as asylum support, border and customs controls at ports, visa procedures, asylum decision-making and the removal of overstayers from the UK. The chief inspector’s office also oversees the work of the Independent Advisory Group on Country Information. This group of academic advisers commission human rights reports that are used to help make decisions on asylum cases.
John Vine has a difficult role. There are longstanding concerns about the competency of borders and immigration staff. In 2006 then home secretary John Reid declared the UK Border Agency ‘not fit for purpose’. In 2012 Theresa May split up the UK Border Agency, after revelations – some from John Vine – that thousands of people had been let into the UK without any immigration checks.
A year later, the UK Border Agency was brought under direct Home Office control, although UK Visas and Immigration remains as a separate agency. But crisis and mismanagement continue, some of which has been made worse by cuts to funding for border and immigration staff.
There is a consensus that John Vine has done a good job in highlighting ineffective borders and immigration control, as well as ensuring that migrants are treated fairly and law and policy are upheld. In the last two years John Vine’s reports have highlighted backlogs of asylum cases, poor record keeping and that the planned e-borders alerts for high risk passengers only covering 65 per cent of incoming visitors to the UK.
His office has also highlighted the need for rigorous checks on those seeking to enter the UK on the basis marriage to an EU-national, and the ‘archiving’ of asylum and immigration overstayer cases. A particularly critical report on student migration showed a failure by the UK Border Agency to follow up on notifications it received about students who have failed to turn up to classes, with a backlog of 153,000 cases in May 2012.
Unfortunately there is little evidence to show that the government has acted on many of John Vine’s concerns. It has set up high profile stunts, the ‘go home’ vans and the prime minister’s participation in an immigration raid are just two examples. But asylum backlogs are increasing, and there is no evidence to show that ‘archived’ cases of undocumented migrants are being reduced. In May this year, incoming passengers to the UK were faced with long delays when the border IT system failed.
Public hostility to immigration remains high in the UK and a major issue that plays into this are the operational failures of borders and immigration staff. If, as a country, we are to become more comfortable with immigration, the government needs to address these failures so as to build greater trust in the immigration system.
For this to take place, we need competent political leadership and high quality staffing, and a Home Office that is adequately resourced. We also need an independent chief inspector who can highlight any failings. John Vine’s successor has a hard task, but his or her role is an essential component of an effective and fair immigration system.
Jill Rutter writes on immigration and is a contributing editor to Left Foot Forward
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
12 Responses to “John Vine’s successor has a hard task ahead of them”
Dave Roberts
So what are you recommending?
Holly
Why are the staff failing?
Why has the managements failure to ensure staff are doing what they meant to do, gone on for so long?
This is not a new phenomenon, so how can the current Home Secretary ensure that staff are being asked to do their job properly by their managers if managers are not up to the job, without a constant barrage of criticism on how awful she is for ‘blaming’ staff & management?
How will the Home Secretary get the ‘high quality staff’ when up against the barrage of criticism she will no doubt have to face down.
Are the ‘high quality’ staff/management, the public, and the opposition willing to back the Home Secretary if she decides on a mass transplant of staff/management, which sounds inevitable, if we are going to start to improve things, or are they going to scream blue murder and call strikes?
Guest
Ah, so when staff magically can’t do more with fewer numbers and resources, they’re “failing”?
And I see, you’ll whine if your massive firing, and telling the rest that they need to do more work to make up for it leads to strikes.
Holly
This mess has been going on for years and years. Long before the 2010 General Election, long before the Cuts, so Einstein, what’s you excuse for the shoddy management/staff prior to 2010, when it was a case of MORE staff not doing what they are paid to do?
Didn’t one top bod get himself into all sorts of trouble by instructing those working under him to ‘cut corners’?
Please do not try to make out that this is some new occurrence, because it is not.
Labour had SIX different Home Secretaries, and not one of them were allowed to stay in place long enough to fix it, because when an issue hit the public domain, they were moved.
Thus ensuring the wrong culture took hold in the top ranks, and the ‘issue’ disappeared….. until the next one appeared….Repeated as necessary.
If people are not doing what they should, then there should be consequences, and in this department, they are putting us ALL at risk of harm. So please stop being so ‘precious’ about failing public sector workers who are failing you, as well as me.
Personally, I would much prefer them not to be there.
Guest
Okay, you want to blame people for not working 80 hour weeks.
That people don’t work themselves in unproductive ways when they’re simply understaffed and thus don’t magically get everything done…well, that’s logic, you ain’t having none of that.
YOUR culture of blaming the workers for understaffing is the wrong one. Of course you want to fire people repeatedly if they refuse to woprk those 80 hour weeks, removing basic protections from staff. And then fire them anyway when they can’t get it done anyway.
Your hatred of workers right is not new, no.