Dear Richard

Thank you very much for your message which I will read with close
interest.

Phil

So it appears that despite the automated response he does get the emails! I much prefer the short, personal response, apparantly from the man himself rather than a formal reply that doesn’t add anything further.

Thank you for sending an email to Phil Woolas, Member of Parliament for Oldham East and Saddleworth.

Due to the volume of email we are receiving, we can no longer accept casework electronicially. Please write to Phil at:

Lord Chambers
11 Church Lane
Oldham
OL1 3AN

If your query is urgent, please telephone our constituency office on 0161 624 4248.

If your correspondence relates to the Home Office, please forward your correspondence to:

Home Office
Direct Communications Unit
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF

With all best wishes and many thanks for your understanding in this matter.

Office of Phil Woolas MP
Oldham East and Saddleworth

I will be sending my email via the Home Office.

I made some suggestions for improving the process of appointment including speeding up the process and including two rather than just one independent members on the interview panel. I said:

A major problem appears to be the influence of current IMB members on the appointments process. If you have a failing IMB it is not likely to improve if existing members are able to resist the appointment of those likely to pursue change and improvement.

I also questioned if it was necessary for independent members to be IMB members at all.

Having now seen the briefing which was given to Mr Woolas when he considered, and rejected, my appointment I drew his attention to the fact it stated that the IMB board at Oakington had three vacancies and a target strength of twelve members as of March 2009. However in the 2008 IMB report, covering January to December 2008 states the board was down to seven members, with only six of them working. I have made a freedom of information request the response to which appears to indicate there were no appointments in 2008 or to June 2009. I suggested those, and other, kinds of errors (or omissions if somehow they are factually correct but the full picture is missing) ought ring alarm bells.

I also drew his attention to further omissions saying:

The pen picture you had of me was in my view highly misleading and inaccurate and key elements were omitted. You were told of my strong criticisms of the length of time it had taken to place the 2005 annual report on the IMB website and that I was dismissive of the chair’s explanations. You were not however told that the chair’s “explanation” was simply to say that it was not important that the IMB’s reports be made available to the public in a timely manner. I believe there’s little point in the IMB doing its work if it doesn’t communicate what it is doing. I understood and accepted the point made that the report had been sent to ministers, but that did not answer my concern. Given the extra background the impression given changes significantly.

On a similar point, your briefing said I was “openly dismissive of the two members of the board who showed [me] around the centre”, but failed to tell you anything about the substance of my criticism. While I was being shown round the board members (and I) spoke to detainees, some of whom raised concerns that I felt needed looking into. I asked what was going to be done to follow up, but was told that the answer was nothing; on the grounds it was not a “formal rota-visit”. I am sure it was right to highlight this “jobsworth” attitude and the fact it shocked and appalled me when asked about my visit. One of those I met admitted a board member had attended the centre during an incident only to drive away again having been told by the police all is under control; that’s not showing the degree of inquisitiveness and persistence I would expect from members of an independent monitoring board.

I have previously commented on those elements which I was made aware of in the feedback I was provided with following the process; such as the ludicrous suggestion that I said I would “not be bound be bound by the Centre rules if [I] felt they were at odds with [my] principles.” I would fully support not appointing someone who said they would not be bound by the centres rules. I certainly made no such statement. What I did say is that I would treat any training offered to IMB members with an appriopriate degree of cynicism. This followed the description of completely ludicrous “human rights” training which members of the IMB had described to me when I had been invited to visit the centre (going so far as to suggest those detained ought to have the “human right” to take their own lives). I argued this was inappropriate in relation to an institution such as Oakington where I suicide prevention ought be, and in fact is, a priority. I stated both at the interview and in my application form that: “If appointed I would attempt, despite any training, to maintain a viewpoint of an interested, educated and caring member of the public”.

Your briefing stated: “The panel was also very concerned that he stated he had bought[sic] a camera phone into the centre twice and had not been challenged; to give the impression that this was to uncover what he believed to be lax security arrangements, and was triumphant in his findings.” I did draw attention to the fact that security appeared to be primarily theatre, and noted the fact that those entering the centre were allowed to keep their mobile phones with them, even if they had cameras. I do not believe I took my own phone beyond the board room, and certainly did not use it in the centre [in the presence of detainees], as might be inferred from the panel’s comments. Those fleeing persecution need to feel safe and secure, some would have legitimate concerns about being photographed and people finding out where they were. It is very important that the detention centre rules are followed. I would have thought ensuring that was the case would be a key role of the IMB. I made very clear my primary reason for bringing up this, and other points, was to urge action on them even if I was not appointed.

Conservative Andrew Selous asked:

Many of my constituents want to know the reason for the huge delays in the Home Office, which lead to the failure to remove illegal immigrants, who then acquire the right to stay in this country. The figures show that the number of removals fell in the last quarter of 2008 and was lower than in 2007. Why was that?

The Government denied there was a problem.

I have been told that Oakington IRC specifically will be debated in the Commons on the 8th of June. I believe effective Independent Monitoring Boards ought be informing the debate, but are not.