UKBA reforms: will higher education providers see meaningful change?
In May 2006, UK home secretary John Reid described what was at the time the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) of the Home Office as "not fit for purpose". Backlogs had grown and foreign prisoners were not being removed. To deal with these issues and deliver the necessary changes, Reid stated that there would need to be radical changes to IND as an organisation.
A strong framework for delivery and accountability would be created with IND becoming a shadow agency from April 2007. Leadership and management would be strengthened and a change of culture introduced. Immigration laws would be strengthened and simplified to make the system more effective. The Border and Immigration Agency was born and became the UK Border Agency (UKBA) in 2008, following a merger with UK Visas and parts of HM Revenue and Customs.
Last week, the current home secretary Theresa May announced that the UKBA would be abolished and absorbed back into the main Home Office. With echoes of John Reid, she described to parliament how the performance of the UKBA was not good enough. A new culture brought about by structural change was required, along with changes to IT and legislation to deal with backlogs and to make the removal of foreign prisoners more effective.
So what does this mean for education providers? Does it herald yet further change to what has been the ever-shifting landscape of Tier 4? Possibly, but we are not holding our breath. While May did also announce a new Immigration Bill in the autumn, the general feeling – in the education sector as in other affected areas – was that we had been here before. That is not to say that radical change is not required, as many education providers will recognise from their day to day dealings with the UKBA.
The day before the home secretary's announcement, the home affairs committee described the continuing backlogs that it had identified, the incorrect information that had been provided to the committee and the failure to deal with the removal of ex-foreign national offenders. The agency's approach to dealing with correspondence was "shambolic". It has given applicants a "notably poor level of customer service" and it was "inexcusable" that so many people are not having their cases processed on time.
In 1998, the government published a white paper under the title Fairer, Faster, Firmer – a Modern Approach to Immigration and Asylum. Setting aside the content, the title reflects what most stakeholders are seeking. Decision making should be faster and fairer. This is not a free service. Applicants pay substantial fees for the consideration of their applications and expect them to be dealt with in a timely, accurate and consistent way.
Education providers are being asked to pay £8000 for information and advice on the students they are sponsoring. Students are paying hundreds of pounds for same day appointments because the normal service is so slow that there is no guarantee that they will have their passports returned in time to travel home during their vacations. Service excellence should be the norm for any organisation and not, as has been increasingly the case with the UKBA, a special or premium service available only to those who can afford it. And that standard of excellence should apply not only to timeliness but also to consistency in decision making and communication with stakeholders.
The vast majority of those who have dealings with the UKBA want to comply. The UKBA meanwhile seems determined to make the process as difficult as possible. Sponsors desperately want clear advice on their duties; students and others refused visas want to return home but are unable to get their passports back to travel. And in conjunction with being fairer and faster, the majority also want the UKBA to be firm. There is no point in talking about sanctions against those who fail to comply with the rules if there is no evidence of them being carried out.
So will the new proposals work? On the same day as May's announcement, permanent secretary Mark Sedwill (in a widely leaked internal memo) told staff: "Most of us will still be doing the same job in the same place with the same colleagues for the same boss and with the same mission".
Informal conversations with UKBA staff also revealed widespread cynicism about the proposed reforms. Many felt that they had "been here before" over the past few years with centralisation followed by decentralisation, name changes, mergers and demergers; a shadow agency, full agency status and now the completion of the cycle with a return to the main Home Office.
Other stakeholders reported feeling more fearful than optimistic about yet further change. If the changes are to be effective on this occasion – and meet the needs of the higher education sector in particular – they will require strong determination and a willingness to address both culture and processes. Otherwise they will be seen as little more than a further movement of the deckchairs.
Don Ingham is director of Veristat Immigration Consultancy and a former director in the UKBA
This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. To get more articles like this direct to your inbox, become a member of the Higher Education Network.