![]() I was impressed with the commitment of the decision makers I met and their focus on getting the right outcome. This task is not helped by outdated information systems and poor data quality. Years of legislation, complex and lengthy immigration rules, backed up by volumes of policy guidance make up the daunting system that must be navigated by decision makers to decide a person’s application. However, the immigration landscape is on a different scale. I believe the team and I have been given full access to staff, documents and information.Īs a former CEO of Jobcentre Plus and two local authorities I am familiar with the complexities created by large organisations responsible for delivering high volume multi-location services. I was keen to engage with decision makers and I am grateful for the positive way in which staff we met in Sheffield, Liverpool and Croydon responded with comments, and talked openly of their experiences of using DNA evidence in decision making. This has included senior civil servants and officials from policy, strategy, assurance and a range of decision making staff. The review has benefited from positive engagement from civil servants. ![]() People can, however, voluntarily provide DNA based evidence. ![]() The legal position is that the Home Office has no express legal power to mandate people to provide DNA based evidence of identity or familial relationships in support of an application, nor can their application be refused for not providing such evidence. This is the review into the Home Office’s response to the mandating of DNA based evidence for immigration purposes. ![]() I am mindful of the effort taken by those responding to requests and the demands this has placed on departments. Staff from the Ministry of Defence have also been interested and open with the review. Both senior officials and junior staff across all Home Office disciplines have been interested in the review and contributed in responding to formal evidence requests and participating in various meetings. Paul Chandwani, Chief of Staff to Shona Dunn, second Permanent Secretary, has been our formal link with the Home Office and he has been respectful of our independence and assisted in progressing issues within the department. David Bolt’s views have been very valuable, not only to build up my understanding of a complex system but also how important it is that actions, when agreed by the Home Office, should be acted upon quickly to deliver improvements. ![]() Wendy Williams is conducting a lessons learned review into how members of the Windrush generation were wrongly caught up in immigration enforcement measures and why it wasn’t spotted sooner, and I hope her findings, alongside this review, inform the future of the Home Office. I appreciate the time and discussions I have had with Wendy Williams who is leading the Windrush lessons learned review and David Bolt the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration. The combined efforts and input from this team have enabled the delivery of a complex and broad review within a short period. James Tweddle and Daniel Deacon were externally seconded to contribute to analysis and audit elements of the review. Mary Halle has led the review team supported by Sarah Aspinall, Julie Hough, Chris Barnes, Cheryl Pellew and Stephen Blackmore from the Home Office. I have been very privileged to have conducted this review with the Home Office colleagues and contractors seconded to me. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |